Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 4342 (MAD)

Jothi v. Palani

2009-10-21

M.VENUGOPAL

body2009
Judgment :- This civil revision petitioner/tenant/respondent has preferred this civil revision as against the order dated 03.08.2007 in I.A.No.103 of 2005 in R.C.A.No.14 of 2005 on the file of Learned Principal District Judge, Pondicherry. 2. The Learned Principal District Judge, Pondicherry, while allowing the I.A.No.103 of 2005 has interalia opined that as per section 23 of the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act enables the Appellate Court to make further enquiry in an appeal which means additional evidence can be received if the situation requires and there is no doubt that an enquiry means receiving of evidence also and that view of the matter has allowed the petitioner to give additional evidence without costs. 3. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner the Learned Principal District Judge, Pondicherry has committed an error in allowing the petition to receive additional evidence when no sufficient cause has been shown to an effect and moreover, the Learned Principal District Judge, Pondicherry has not appreciated the fact that the trial Court ought to have seen the copies of the documents which were already marked in evidence and considered by the trial Court while deciding the RCOP petition and has wrongly accepted the plea of the respondent that the copies of documents were not considered and in fact, the filing of additional document was only a ruse to adduce further oral evidence by taking advantage of the same and fill up the defects and deficiencies in evidence to suit the convenience of the respondent and causing serious prejudice to the petitioner and therefore, prays for allowing the civil revision petition in the interest of justice. 4. Before the Learned Principal District Judge, Pondicherry the respondent/plaintiff as petitioner has filed an affidavit in I.A.No.103 of 2005 to the effect that copies of sale deed date 2.08.2000 and 211. 4. Before the Learned Principal District Judge, Pondicherry the respondent/plaintiff as petitioner has filed an affidavit in I.A.No.103 of 2005 to the effect that copies of sale deed date 2.08.2000 and 211. 2000 were produced before the Learned Rent Controller on application filed by the revision petitioner/respondent for production of the documents and despite the copies of the sale deeds were produced the same were looked into and the original sale deed were admitted in evidence in another connected proceedings in O.S.No.839 of 2000 and therefore the originals could not be produced before the Learned Rent Controller and however the said O.S.No.839 of 2000 has been dismissed, and after obtaining the original documents the same have been filed to prove the ownership in respect of the demised property and added further, the sale deeds standing in the name of his mother and in his name have been filed and therefore has prayed for allowing the application. 5. In the counter filed by the revision petitioner/respondent it is averred that the respondent/petitioner has not produced any document before the lower Court and the respondent has not impleaded his mother who is the owner of the scheduled property and there are lot of decisions of this Court that new pleading cannot be pleaded without pleading the same before the lower Court and therefore, a new plea cannot be allowed to be taken and hence the application has to be dismissed. 6. It is not in dispute that Section 23 of the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act enjoins upon the Appellate Authority to embark upon a further enquiry which means an additional evidence can be received if the exigency of situation so require and additional evidence also will partake within the domain of enquiry in the considered opinion of this Court. 7. It is an axiomatic fact that the marking of a document is one thing and proving its content is another thing in the eye of law. Viewed in that perspective and after going through the order of the Learned Principal District Judge, Pondicherry in I.A.No.103 of 2005, this Court comes to an inevitable conclusion that the same does not require any interference and resultantly the civil revision petition is dismissed. 8. In the result the civil revision petition is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 8. In the result the civil revision petition is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The Learned Principal District Judge, Pondicherry is directed to receive the sale deed dated 02.08.2000, 211. 2000, 012. 2000, 212. 2000, morefully and particularly described in the list of documents in I.A.No.103 of 2005 filed before the Learned Appellate Authority as per Rule 11 and 12 of the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Rules, 1980 subject to proof and relevancy, and it is open to the revision petitioner to raise all sorts of objections before the Learned First Appellate Authority and the First Authority is directed to consider the same and to pass appropriate orders on merits in the manner known to law. Having regard, to the facts and circumstances of the case the order passed by the Learned Principal District Judge, Pondicherry in I.A.No.103 of 2005 in First Appellate Authority is affirmed for the reasons assigned in this revision. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2007 is closed.