Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1960 (RAJ)

Kirodi Lal v. Chhitar Mal

2013-11-08

BELA M.TRIVEDI

body2013
ORDER The present writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 20th March, 2013 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kotputli (hereinafter referred to as the Trial Court) in Civil Suit No. 165/2009, whereby the Trial Court has refused to take the documents on record, produced by the petitioner-defendant at the time of cross-examination of the plaintiff. 2. In the instant case, it appears that the respondent-plaintiff has filed the suit seeking possession of the suit shop on the ground that the lease, by which the suit shop was given to the petitioner-defendant, was terminated by the respondent-plaintiff, after giving notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. It has also been alleged that the petitioner had committed default in making the payment of rent for about nine months. The said suit was resisted by the petitioner-defendant by filing the written statement. The Trial Court, after considering the pleadings of the parties, had framed issues and proceeded for recording of the evidence. It appears that during the cross-examination of the plaintiff, the petitioner-defendant sought to produce certain documents with regard to the old tenancy, and the Photostat copy of the rent note dated 31st August, 1981, and also the electric bills. The Trial Court did not permit the petitioner to produce the said documents, as per the impugned order dated 20th March, 2013, against which the present petition has been filed. 3. It has been sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Mr. R.P. Garg for the petitioner that in view of Order XIII, Rule 1(3) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the petitioner could produce the documents for cross-examination of the plaintiff, and hence the impugned order passed by the Trial Court not permitting the petitioner to produce the documents is illegal. He has also relied upon the decision of Madras High Court in case of Miss T.M. Mohana v. V. Kannan, AIR 1984 Madras 14 to submit that the documents could be produced during the cross-examination of the plaintiff or his witnesses. 4. However, the learned counsel Mr. Gaurav Gupta for the respondent-plaintiff has submitted that the petitioner was filing the application one after the other with a view to prolong the proceedings. 4. However, the learned counsel Mr. Gaurav Gupta for the respondent-plaintiff has submitted that the petitioner was filing the application one after the other with a view to prolong the proceedings. He also submitted that the documents, sought to be produced during the cross-examination, were not relevant to the subject-matter of the suit, as the suit was filed seeking possession of the suit shop, after serving necessary notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, and the Rajasthan Rent Control Act is not applicable to the suit shop. 5. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties, and to the impugned order, as also the provisions contained in Order XIII Rule 1(3) of the CPC, it appears that the petitioner-defendant had sought to invoke the said provision by producing certain documents during the cross-examination of the respondent-plaintiff. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the parties or their pleader are required to produce on or before the settlement of issues, all the documentary evidence in original where the copies thereof have been filed along with plaint or written statement, in view of Rule 1(1) of Order XIII, however, the said sub-rule (1) would not apply to the documents, which are sought to be produced for the cross-examination of the witnesses of the other party, in view of sub-rule (3)(a) of the said Order. From the bare perusal of the said provisions, it transpires that the provisions contained in Rule 1(3) could be invoked by producing documents for the cross- examination of the witnesses of the other party or to refresh the memory of the witnesses. In the opinion of the Court, the said provision would apply when the witness of the party is being cross-examined, and not when the party i.e. the plaintiff or defendant, as the case may be, is being cross-examined. The words used are of the witnesses of the other party and the witness in Rule 1(3) of the said Order. If the intention of the Legislature was to include the party also, it would not have used the word witness. In the instant case, the documents were sought to be produced during the cross-examination of the plaintiff, who could not be said to be the witness of the party i.e. the plaintiff. If the intention of the Legislature was to include the party also, it would not have used the word witness. In the instant case, the documents were sought to be produced during the cross-examination of the plaintiff, who could not be said to be the witness of the party i.e. the plaintiff. Even otherwise, it appears that the documents, sought to be produced, were not produced by the defendant, as contemplated in Order XIII, Rule 1(1) of CPC, and the said documents also do not appear to be relevant to the subject-matter of the suit. The Court, therefore, does not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. 6. In that view of the matter, the petition deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed. Petition dismissed.