Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2337 (ALL)

Inderjeet Singh v. J. M. Aprailes Pvt. Ltd.

2016-07-06

PANKAJ NAQVI

body2016
JUDGMENT Pankaj Naqvi, J. – Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri. Santosh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the revisionist. 3. This revision u/s 25 of the PSCC Act, is preferred against the order dated 13.5.2016 passed by IIIrd Addl. District Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar in SC Suit No. 19 of 2015 allowing the application (Paper no.35/C) and admitting the documents filed by the opposite party/landlord. 4. The revisionist is a tenant and is facing a suit for eviction, arrears of rent etc. During the pendency of the suit, an application dated 6.5.2016 was filed by the opposite party/landlord for bringing on record certain documents (5), which was objected by the revisionist on the ground that documents cannot be admitted after evidence is recorded, the application is liable to be rejected. The court below allowed the application, admitted the documents, subject to rebuttal. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist contends that as plaintiff's evidence was over, in view of the provisions of Order 13, Rule 1 CPC, said documents could not have been brought on record. He relies upon a judgment of this Court in Hoti Lal and Others v. Addl. District Judge, Khurja and Others, 2005 (2) ARC 851 . 6. The records reveal that the statement of PW-1 was recorded for the first time on 6.5.2016, i.e, the date on which the aforesaid application was filed. No doubt, after the amendment of 2002, Order 13, Rule 1 as now stands all documentary evidence in original has to be produced on or before the settlement of issues and no discretion has been left with the trial court as was prior to the amendment, to receive a document. But in a suit of small cause nature, unlike a regular suit on the original side, no issues are framed and only a date for final hearing is fixed. Thus the embargo in respect of the filing of the documentary evidence on or before the settlement of issues would not come in the way of a suit of a small cause nature. Moreover, the impugned application was filed on the very day, i.e, 6.5.2016, when the statement of PW-1 was recorded for the first time and that the documents so filed are none other than the originals, of which a xerox copy was already on record. 7. Moreover, the impugned application was filed on the very day, i.e, 6.5.2016, when the statement of PW-1 was recorded for the first time and that the documents so filed are none other than the originals, of which a xerox copy was already on record. 7. The Court has perused the decision of Hoti Lal (supra) and finds that in the said case, documents were sought to be filed by the defendant after the evidence of the plaintiff was closed. 8. In this view of the matter, the decision in Hoti Lal (supra) would not be applicable on the facts of the present case. 9. No other plea is urged. 10. The revision lacks merit and is dismissed. Revision dismissed.