Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1359 (RAJ)

Ramesh Chand v. Rent Tribunal

2006-04-26

DALIP SINGH

body2006
Judgment Dalip Singh, J.-The petitioner in this writ petition, has challenged the order dated 211.2005 by which the non-petitioner-plaintiff has been allowed to bring on record the affidavit of one Ram Gopal, a witness of the plaintiff . The plaintiff filed the suit for eviction on the ground of subletting. Alongwith the suit, an affidavit of Ram Gopal was also filed. The defendant filed the written statement and the same is available on record and in the written statement at several places it has been stated by the defendant that on the rent note dated 011.1974 specific endorsement was made by Ram Gopal, the original landlord that premises has been let out to the petitioner and the endorsement on the rent note was made on 01.07.1978. The written statement had been filed and subsequently the Court allowed the defendant to bring on record the copy of the rent note dated 011.1974. The endorsement on the rent note reads as under:- 2. To the averments made in the written statement that was filed, no rejoinder was filed. 3. The respondents moved an application under Order 7 Rule 14, CPC to place on record the affidavit of Ram Gopal in which Ram Gopal though has admitted the endorsement made on the rent note but has tried to explain that said endorsement was made in May, 2003 out of vengeance between the brothers i.e., Ram Gopal and the plaintiff . To may mind, the aforesaid explanation which is sought to be introduced appears to be an afterthought. The plaintiff after having gone through the written statement which was filed ought to have filed a rejoinder denying the fact regarding the endorsement which was made by Ram Gopal and since no such plea was raised in rejoinder the same has been sought to be introduced in the evidence of Ram Gopal by way of affidavit, which is now sought to be produced by the plaintiff . It is settled law that no amount of evidence of a plea which has not been raised cannot be allowed to be taken on record. 4. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal dated 211.2005 is set aside. The stay application also stands disposed of .