Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1112 (JHR)

Tirath Ram Saluza v. Rajendra Kumar

2015-09-16

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2015
ORDER : Aggrieved by order dated 24.07.2014 in Eviction Suit No. 02 of 2012 whereby, application dated 06.05.2014 for taking copy of notice (UCP) and UCP receipt in evidence has been allowed, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. The petitioner is defendant in Eviction Suit No. 02 of 2012. The suit was filed for ejection of the defendant from shop “Hello Brothers Gents Wear” situated in a portion of Plot No. 7557 in Khata No. 951, Mouza Telaiya, admeasuring 175 Sq. feet. The plaintiffs asserted that the previous landlord constructed four rooms and inducted four tenants, one of them was defendant namely, Tirath Ram Saluza. Separate eviction suits have been filed for eviction of other tenants also. The suit was filed on the ground of default in payment of rent. In the pending suit when one Sanat Kumar Das who was examined as P.W.3 produced a copy of UCP notice and UCP receipt, application dated 06.05.2014 was filed for taking those documents on record. The said application has been allowed. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the plaint, the plaintiffs asserted that the notice was sent through registered post on 23.05.2011 whereas, the witness Sanat Kumar Das produced UCP notice and UCP receipt for which no foundational fact was laid in the plaint. It is submitted that in the plaint neither a statement was made that said documents were not in possession of the plaintiffs nor permission was sought from the Court for producing the said documents at the time of trial still, the Trial Court has admitted those documents in evidence. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that after the purchase of suit property, the landlord and the plaintiffs approached the defendant (petitioner herein) and informed about the transfer of the suit property in favour of the plaintiffs however, the defendant did not pay rent to the plaintiffs. Sanat Kumar Das who was examined as P.W.3 was son of the erstwhile landlord and he was collecting rent from the tenants. Relying on a decision in “Ashok Sharma Vs. Sanat Kumar Das who was examined as P.W.3 was son of the erstwhile landlord and he was collecting rent from the tenants. Relying on a decision in “Ashok Sharma Vs. Ram Adhar Sharma” (2009)11 SCC 47 , the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Court has ample power to permit examination of the witness and production of document even if the name of such witness does not figure in the list of witnesses. 5. It is not in dispute that Sanat Kumar Das is cited as one of the plaintiffs' witnesses. He filed his examination-in-chief on 06.05.2014 in which in paragraph nos. 8 & 9 he asserted that the defendant/tenant was informed through notice by UCP about the transfer of suit property. The said witness has further asserted that he identifies the signature of Shambhu Nath Das alias Pradutya Kumar Das who sent the said notice. The documents mentioned in application dated 06.05.2014 were tendered by the said witness and accordingly, application on the same day was filed for taking those documents on record. Those documents were not in possession of the plaintiffs, is not disputed by the defendant. The plaintiffs have asserted that on 15.03.2011, through registered sale, the suit property was sold to the plaintiffs and erstwhile landlord personally informed the tenant. It is further averred that on 23.05.2011 through registered post the tenant was given notice. There is no dispute that the notice dated 23.05.2011 was sent by Pradyut Kumar Das @ Shambhu Nath Das to the defendant. The plea raised by the petitioner is that though in the plaint, it is asserted that the said notice was sent through registered post whereas, the documents produced by P.W.3 discloses UCP notice. In “Ashok Sharma Vs. Ram Adhar Sharma” (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that if a witness is present in the Court for examination even though, the name of such witness was not included in the list of witnesses, the Court cannot deny examination of such witness. The witness Sanat Kumar Das who was examined as P.W.3 is a cited witness in the list of witnesses. The said witness produced UCP notice and UCP receipt and he asserted in his examination-in-Chief that UCP notice was sent to the defendant. Whether the UCP notice and UCP receipt are admissible in evidence or not, is a question which can be decided in the trial. The said witness produced UCP notice and UCP receipt and he asserted in his examination-in-Chief that UCP notice was sent to the defendant. Whether the UCP notice and UCP receipt are admissible in evidence or not, is a question which can be decided in the trial. At this stage, when the witness produced two documents, on the application of the plaintiffs the Court has taken those documents on record. I find no infirmity in the impugned order dated 24.07.2014. Though, the impugned order is a non-speaking order, I find that the permission granted to the plaintiffs for tendering the documents on record is in consonance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore, no interference is required with impugned order dated 24.07.2014. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Petition dismissed.