Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3410 (ALL)

Suresh Kumar Gupta v. Jai Kumar Mishra

2014-11-14

PANKAJ MITHAL

body2014
JUDGMENT Pankaj Mithal,J. Heard Sri Lalit Kumar, learned counsel for the tenant revisionist and Sri P.K. Jain, Senior Advocate, appearing for the landlord respondent No.1. 2. The respondent No.1 filed a Small Causes Suit for the eviction of the revisionist from the premises in dispute on the ground of default in payment of rent and material alteration. In the said suit the revisionist moved application 88Ga for adducing further documentary evidence in the form of rent receipts. The said application has been rejected by the impugned order dated 12.09.2014 passed by the Small Causes Court. 3. Accordingly, the present revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887 has been preferred. 4. The submission of Sri Lalit Kumar, is that in the interest of justice the rent receipts should be permitted to be taken on record as otherwise his defence in the suit regarding default in payment of rent would remain unsupported by evidence. 5. Sri Jain has supported the order of the court below on the ground that after close of evidence of the party and when the arguments of the respondent No.1 are over such an application cannot be entertained. The provision of Rule 2 Order XIII C.P.C. which permits further evidence at a later stage at the discretion of the court has been deleted. Lastly, no case for any further evidence was made out. Therefore, there is no jurisdictional error in the impugned order. 6. There is no dispute to the fact that the suit is of a summary nature and is pending since 2011. The application for further documentary evidence was filed after the parties have adduced their evidence and the respondent No.1 has completed his arguments. 7. The court below records that the tenant revisionist in his cross-examination has accepted that he has not filed any rent receipts in evidence and he does not know the reason for not filing the same. 8. The application for bringing on record the rent receipts discloses that the rent receipts were misplaced by the revisionist but they have been traced out so they are being filed. 9. 8. The application for bringing on record the rent receipts discloses that the rent receipts were misplaced by the revisionist but they have been traced out so they are being filed. 9. In view of the clear statement of the tenant revisionist in cross-examination that he had not filed the rent receipts and he does not know the reason for not filing the same clearly indicates that the rent receipts were either not available or if available were not filed for reasons unknown but they were not said to have been misplaced. 10. The rent receipts which are proposed to be filed have been enclosed with the supplementary affidavit filed by the tenant revisionist. A glance at the rent receipts reveal that some of the receipts are in the name of a firm Suresh Kumar and sons and not in the personal name of the tenant revisionist Suresh Kumar Gupta. The said rent receipts or any other of the same kind as such cannot be a material piece of evidence in the present case. 11. The accepting of the said rent receipts in evidence means to permit the revisionist to lead evidence to prove the same and thereafter respondent No.1 to adduce evidence in rebuttal. This would amount to virtual retrial of the suit. 12. Counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance upon 1994 Law Suit (SC) 131 Billa Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs. Billa Sanjeeva Reddy and on its basis has contended that additional evidence can be permitted by the trial court before the arguments are completed. 13. Previously Order XIII Rule 2 C.P.C. permitted the court in its discretion to accept evidence subsequently provided good cause is shown to the satisfaction of the court for its non-production earlier. The aforesaid provision has been deleted by Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1999 w.e.f. 01.07.2002. Therefore, as on date, there is no provision which authorises the court to allow production of documentary evidence which has not been produced on or before the settlement of issues or before the actual arguments on merits have started. 14. In the above situation, it is only in exercise of inherent power of the court under Section 151 C.P.C. that such further evidence after the settlement of issues in suit if at all can be permitted. 14. In the above situation, it is only in exercise of inherent power of the court under Section 151 C.P.C. that such further evidence after the settlement of issues in suit if at all can be permitted. Even in exercise of inherent power court can not permit filing of documentary evidence at a later stage unless the party comes with clean hands and assigns good reasons for non-production of the evidence at the appropriate time. 15. In the instant case, the conduct of the revisionist does not appear to be very clean. In his cross-examination he had not stated that the rent receipts have been misplaced and therefore could not be filed. What he states is that he has not filed the rent receipts and he does not know the reason for not filing the same. It gives an impression that he is telling a lie and now wants to improve upon his case. He may have procured fake receipts in support of his defence as is reflected by some of the receipts enclosed. The date on which the misplaced rent receipts were traced out has not been disclosed which means the explanation for adducing them in evidence at this stage is concocted and is far from truth. Moreover, permitting filing of the rent receipts at this stage would virtually result in retrial causing prejudice to respondent No.1. 16. The evidence is supposed to be produced before the settlement of issues or in a given case before the completion of the arguments does not mean it can be permitted in a routine manner after the start of the arguments or the completion of arguments of one of the parties. No special reason exist for permitting further evidence in the case after the close of arguments of the respondent No.1. 17. The discretion exercised by the court below in rejecting the application is not arbitrary and against settled principles of law which may warrant interference in exercised of revisional jurisdiction. 18. In view of above, I find no error in the order of the court below refusing permission to adduce further evidence after the close of evidence and on completion of arguments of one of the parties. 19. The revision accordingly, lacks merit and is dismissed.