Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1093 (HP)

Dharam Pal v. Mandir Bhagwati Devi

2015-08-13

P.S.RANA

body2015
ORDER P. S. Rana, J. Present civil revision petition is filed against the order dated 3.8.2013 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Nurpur District Kangra H.P. whereby application filed under Section 151 CPC by revisionist for adducing additional evidence was dismissed by learned trial Court. Brief facts of the case 2. Temple Bhagwati Devi non-revisionist filed Civil Suit No. 39 of 2003 titled Temple Bhagwati Devi vs. Dharam Pal for possession by way of ejectment of revisionist from the premises comprised in khata No. 297 khatoni No. 453 khasra No. 590 comprising 0-00-21 H.M. situated in mohal and mauza Jassur Tehsil Nurpur District Kangra H.P. as per site plan attached along with the civil suit. Additional relief of decree for recovery of Rs. 15,200/- also sought as arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month w.e.f. January 2001 and further relief of damages to the tune of Rs. 15,000/- also sought and relief of mesne profit at the rate of Rs. 600/- per month also sought from the date of filing of suit till the date of decree and till actual ejectment of revisionist from the shop in dispute. It is pleaded that revisionist took the shop in dispute on rent. It is pleaded that tenancy commenced from the first date of english calendar month and ends with last date of same month. It is further pleaded that revisionist did not pay the rent despite several requests. 3. Per contra written statement filed on behalf of non-revisionist/ defendant pleading therein that vacant land was taken on rent at the rate of Rs. 180/- per year and the lease of the land was perpetual. It is further pleaded that shop was constructed with lintel in the year 1971-72. It is pleaded that land was taken on rent through Col. Kirpal Singh who was the then manager of the Temple Bhagwati Devi. 4. On dated 10.6.2009 learned trial Court closed the evidence of the parties and listed the case for final arguments on 27.6.2009. Thereafter many dates were given for final arguments. On dated 28.9.2011 learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the revisionist filed application under Section 151 CPC before learned trial Court for placing on record and adducing additional documentary evidence in favour of revisionist/ defendant i.e. receipt of lease money of Rs. 180 (One hundred eighty) w.e.f. 01.01.1988 to 31.12.1988 dated 24.5.1988. Thereafter many dates were given for final arguments. On dated 28.9.2011 learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the revisionist filed application under Section 151 CPC before learned trial Court for placing on record and adducing additional documentary evidence in favour of revisionist/ defendant i.e. receipt of lease money of Rs. 180 (One hundred eighty) w.e.f. 01.01.1988 to 31.12.1988 dated 24.5.1988. Revisionist pleaded in the application filed under Section 151 CPC that lease money receipt of Rs. 180/- was given by Sh. Kirpal Singh who was the then manager of the Temple Committee for a period from 1.1.1988 to 31.12.1988. Revisionist also attached the lease receipt of Rs. 180/-. It is pleaded that receipt is very necessary for proper adjudication of the case and prayer for acceptance of application filed under Section 151 CPC sought. 5. Per contra response filed on behalf of non-revisionist pleading therein that present application has been filed just to delay the proceedings of the present case. It is pleaded that present receipt is not material for the just decision of the case. It is further pleaded that receipt did not belong to suit property. It is pleaded that present application has been filed by the revisionist just to grab the property of Temple Bhagwati Devi and prayer for dismissal of application filed under Section 151 CPC sought. 6. Learned trial Court on dated 3.8.2013 dismissed the application on the ground that present document is not properly stamped and learned trial Court held that present application filed just to linger on civil suit on one pretext or the other and thereafter learned trial Court dismissed the application being devoid of any merit. Thereafter learned trial Court fixed the case for final arguments of Civil Suit No. 39 of 2003 for 19.8.2013. Feeling aggrieved against the order passed by learned trial Court, revisionist filed the present revision petition. 7. Court heard the learned Advocate appearing on behalf the revisionist and learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the non-revisionist and Court also perused the entire record carefully. 8. Court has carefully perused the receipt filed along with application. As per contents of the document placed on record lease money receipt is relating to lease money of Rs. 180/- for the period from 1.1.1988 to 31.12.1988. Lease money receipt was issued on 24.5.1988 by Kirpal. 8. Court has carefully perused the receipt filed along with application. As per contents of the document placed on record lease money receipt is relating to lease money of Rs. 180/- for the period from 1.1.1988 to 31.12.1988. Lease money receipt was issued on 24.5.1988 by Kirpal. After perusal of lease money receipt carefully, it is observed by the Court that lease money receipt is not properly stamped as required under Indian Stamp Act 1899. As per Section 35 of Indian Stamp Act 1899, instrument not duly stamped will be inadmissible in evidence. As per Section 30 of Indian Stamp Act 1899 if any person received any money exceeding twenty rupees in amount then he is under legal obligation to give duly stamped receipt. In the present case lease money receipt is not properly stamped. Lease money receipt proposed to be proved is annuity lease money receipt as define in Section 25 of Indian Stamp Act 1899. Hence lease money receipt filed along with application filed under Section 151 CPC is impounded by the order of the Court under Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act 1899 and same will be released upon payment of stamp duty and penalty as provided by Section 35 (a) of Indian Stamp Act 1899. If impounded lease money receipt will release in accordance with Section 35 of Indian Stamp Act 1899 thereafter same will be placed on record and will be proved as per Indian Evidence Act 1872. 9. In view of the fact that present Civil Suit is pending since 2003 and in view of the fact that present civil suit was listed for final arguments on 27.6.2009 and in view of the fact that application was filed at a belated stage on dated 28.9.2011 after two years when civil suit was listed for final arguments. Costs to the tune of Rs. 2000/- (Two thousand) is also imposed upon revisionist. Order of learned trial Court dated 3.8.2013 passed upon application filed under Section 151 CPC is modified accordingly as per observations made supra. As Civil Suit is pending since 2003 learned trial Court will dispose of the civil suit expeditiously within two months after receipt of file. Parties are directed to appear before learned trial Court on date 10.9.2015. File of the learned trial Court along with certified copy of this order be sent back forthwith. As Civil Suit is pending since 2003 learned trial Court will dispose of the civil suit expeditiously within two months after receipt of file. Parties are directed to appear before learned trial Court on date 10.9.2015. File of the learned trial Court along with certified copy of this order be sent back forthwith. File of civil revision petition be consigned to record room after due completion. Civil Revision Petition No. 4072 of 2013 is disposed of accordingly. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.