Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 333 (MP)

Balaji Metal v. Shilpa Maheshwari

2016-04-26

ROHIT ARYA

body2016
ORDER 1. This petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the defendant-tenant taking exception to the order dated 28.4.15 passed by the trial Court allowing the application under Order 7 rule 14, CPC filed by the respondent-plaintiff. 2. Facts necessary for disposal of this writ petition are in narrow compass. 3. Suit for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent is pending consideration. Plaintiff has also taken plea that petitionerdefendant has taken loan from the Bank mortgaging the suit property, to which plaintiff is also a party. However, as the petitioner-defendant has committed default in repayment, his cash-credit account has been rendered as NPA. Likewise, he has also committed default in repayment of loan amount and as such, he is a rank defaulter. Hence, in connection with the aforesaid pleadings, documents to demonstrate about the communication from Bank as regards NPA of cash credit limit as well as notice of bank calling upon the defendant to repay the outstanding dues and other documents in support of such plea were sought to be brought on record by the application under Order 7 rule 14, CPC and vide the order impugned the same have been taken on record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in a suit for eviction filed on the ground of arrears of rent, neither the aforesaid plea, nor the documents so brought on record, have any relevance, as the factum of default in payment of arrears of rent has to be independently assessed and addressed as under S.12(1)(a) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act (for short “the Act”) there is no such provision whereunder the aforesaid plea and documents can be of any assistance/justification in a suit for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent. Hence, the trial Court has committed error of law and fact while allowing the application for taking the aforesaid documents on record. 5. Per contra, Shri R.K.Soni, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff contends that because the pleadings in that behalf are on record therefore by taking the documents on record, no illegality has been committed by the trial Court. 6. Hence, the trial Court has committed error of law and fact while allowing the application for taking the aforesaid documents on record. 5. Per contra, Shri R.K.Soni, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff contends that because the pleadings in that behalf are on record therefore by taking the documents on record, no illegality has been committed by the trial Court. 6. Considering the aforesaid submissions, in the opinion of this Court, the trial Court though has exercised jurisdiction under Order 7 rule 14(3), CPC; an essentially discretionary jurisdiction, the said discretion is to be exercised judiciously bearing in mind the relevancy of documents in the context of cause of action and the nature of suit pending consideration. The suit is under section 12(1)(a) of the Act. Therefore, the trial Court is required to address on the default in the matter of making payment of rent and the provision as contained in S.12(1)(a) of the Act cannot be stretched to the extent of assessing default of petitioner/defendant in repayment of loan advanced by the Bank. Therefore, the trial Court has not correctly exercised the discretionary jurisdiction while allowing the application. Hence, the impugned order is set aside. However, the trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial in accordance with law, expeditiously. 7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 8. Petition disposed of, accordingly. .