Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 105 (AP)

C. Ramakrishna v. Maqsood Ali Khan

2001-02-06

B.SUDERSHAN REDDY

body2001
B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THE learned Counsel for the respondent at the threshold raised an objection as to the maintainability of Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the interlocutory order passed by the learned Rent Controller. The learned Counsel for the respondent would place reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Chaganlal sardarilal (died) vs. N. Pershad in support of his submission. ( 2 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner, sri Bajrang Singh Thakur, would place reliance upon a judgment of this Court in m. Nagender Rao vs. B. M. Lakshmaiah. In the said judgment, a learned Single Judge of this Court after an elaborate consideration of the matter and after referring to the judgments in Re Saleem Bin Ahmed (1994 (1) an. W. R. 169) and Chagnlal (died) Sardarilal vs. N. Pershad (supra) declared the law in the following terms:"an order either allowing or refusing an amendment is only a procedural in nature as a step in aid to the final orders to be passed. Against the order of the Rent Controller dismissing the application under Order 6 Rule 17 cpc the appeal would not be maintainable". In the circumstances, the contention of the respondent that the petitioner ought to have preferred an appeal before the appellate authority is unsustainable. I do not find any reason whatsoever to take a different view other than the one taken by the learned single Judge after referring to all the judgments on the subject. ( 3 ) AT any rate, even if an appeal lies against the impugned order before the learned appellate Judge, this Court s jurisdiction under Article 227 of the constitution of India is in no manner affected and it shall always be open to this court in appropriate cases to interfere in the interest of justice. ( 4 ) IN the present case, the learned Rent controller dismissed an innocuous application filed by the petitioner herein to call for the records, that is to say, registration Certificate of Sales Tax File no. CHM/05/1/3042 and APGST CHMO/ 01/2/2078/89-90. It is rather difficult to appreciate as to what prejudice would be caused to the rights of the respondent, if an order is passed directing the concerned to produce the records. A very hyper technical view is taken in the matter by the learned rent Controller. CHM/05/1/3042 and APGST CHMO/ 01/2/2078/89-90. It is rather difficult to appreciate as to what prejudice would be caused to the rights of the respondent, if an order is passed directing the concerned to produce the records. A very hyper technical view is taken in the matter by the learned rent Controller. The learned Rent controller observed that the petitioner herein filed I. A. No. 284 of 2000 under order 13 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil procedure seeking a direction to the assistant Commercial Tax Officer to bring the record and the same was allowed and he has sent certain documents to the Court. In the circumstances, the learned Rent controller observed that the Court has given sufficient opportunity to establish the case of the petitioner in that interlocutory application. It is not the case that the petitioner summoned or filed application to send for the very same documents, which are now sought to be summoned by the petitioner in the present application. It is the cardinal principle of law and needs no reiteration that no evidence should be shut out from the consideration of the Court. All relevant evidence may have to be taken into consideration for effective disposal of the us. In the circumstances, the learned Rent controller ought to have allowed the application. There is no justification whatsoever on the part of the learned Rent controller to have rejected the application filed by the petitioner. ( 5 ) FOR all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order is set aside. I. A. No. 470 of 2000 in R. C. No. 672 of 1998 is ordered. Necessary consequential steps shall be taken by the learned Rent Controller. The rent Control Case itself shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible. It is needless to observe that the learned Rent Controller shall proceed with the enquiry and trial strictly in accordance with law uninfluenced by any of the observations made in this Order. ( 6 ) THE Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed. No order as costs.