Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 748 (MP)

Jahoor Ahmad v. Jahoor Be

2016-08-29

VIVEK RUSIA

body2016
ORDER 1. This writ petition has been filed by the defendants being aggrieved by the order dated 6.5.2016 passed by the learned 9th Civil Judge, Class-I, Indore. 2. That, respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for arrears of rent and mesne profit and eviction, for the bona fide need of his son. The accommodation in question is a shop in possession of the petitioners/defendants as a tenant for non-residential purpose. 3. After notice, the petitioners /defendants filed written statements, in which, he stated that there is no bona fide need as the son of the plaintiff is already running business in house No.123/2 in the name of Nafis Bakery. The plaintiff examined three witnesses and closed her evidence. The defendants submitted their evidence under Order 18 rule 4 of the CPC and cross-examination has been started, which was incomplete on 23.9.2015. 4. That, the plaintiff filed two applications under Order 18 rule 17 of CPC and under Order 16 rule 1(3) read with section 151 of CPC, which were opposed by the defendants by filing a reply. Vide impugned order dated 6.5.2016, the application has been allowed for taking documents on record, but the application for summoning the records from the Municipal Corporation, Indore was rejected. The plaintiff was permitted to exhibit the documents and the defendants were given an opportunity to cross-examine by the next date of hearing. Hence the present writ petition has been filed before this Court by the defendants/petitioners. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the evidence of the plaintiff has been concluded and she was cross-examined also and the case is fixed for cross-examination of the defendants, therefore, at this stage, without any sufficient reasons and the grounds, the trial Court should not have allowed the application. The facts were well within the knowledge of the plaintiff, but she deliberately did not file those documents relating to those facts within time. The application has been allowed against the provisions of law. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent, in support of the impugned order, submitted that the trial Court has not committed any error of law while allowing the application. The documents are necessary for adjudication of the dispute between the parties. O R D E R 7. The application has been allowed against the provisions of law. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent, in support of the impugned order, submitted that the trial Court has not committed any error of law while allowing the application. The documents are necessary for adjudication of the dispute between the parties. O R D E R 7. The plaintiff/respondent in her plaint has stated that she has no other accommodation available in the Indore City to run the business of her son except the shop in possession of the defendants. The defendants in their written statements have stated that the plaintiff is having another house No.123/2, Jawahar Marg, Indore. After the evidence of the plaintiff, the defendants filed the documents relating to the property taxes and the mutation and the old records of the Municipal Corporation, Indore. To counter those document, the plaintiff has now filed original mutation documents and the property tax receipts in the name of house owner Abdul Gayyur of house No.123/2, Jawahar Marg, Indore. Since there is variation in the records issued by the Municipal Corporation, Nagar Nigam filed by the plaintiff as well as by defendants. Therefore, the application was filed that the records should be summoned through record keeper. 8. Learned trial Court however, rejected the prayer for summoning the records, but permitted the plaintiff to exhibit these documents. Two types of records relating to house Nos.122 and 123/2 are filed by the plaintiff and the defendants. According to the plaintiff, the defendants have produced old record, whereas the plaintiff is in possession of the new records generated through computer, therefore, the trial Court has rightly allowed the application and permitted the defendants to cross-examine the plaintiff to extent of those documents. In my opinion, the trial Court has not committed any error while passing the impugned order. 9. Even, the scope of Article 227 of Constitution of India in exercising jurisdiction is very limited in respect of interferring with the order of sub-ordinate Court. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty and another v. Rajendra Shankar Patil, reported in (2010)8 SCC 329 , wherein it has held that : “The scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited. If order is shown to be passed by a Court having no jurisdiction, it suffers from manifest procedural impropriety or perversity, interference can be made. If order is shown to be passed by a Court having no jurisdiction, it suffers from manifest procedural impropriety or perversity, interference can be made. Interference is made to ensure that Courts below act within the bounds of their authority. Another view is possible, is not a ground for interference. Interference can be made sparingly for the said purpose and not for correcting error of facts and law in a routine manner. 10. In view of the aforesaid findings, I do not find any illegality or error committed by the trial Court. Accordingly, present writ petition is dismissed. S. L. Ahirwasi for petitioners; A. P. Polekar for respondents.