Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raj Kumar vs Bawa Jai Gopal Singh on 23 December, 2005
Equivalent citations: (2006)143PLR381
Author: Ajay Kumar Mittal
Bench: Ajay Kumar Mittal
JUDGMENT Ajay Kumar Mittal, J.
1. In this revision petition, filed by the tenant, the challenge is to order dated 22.4.2005, whereby the Rent Controller had kept the matter open regarding whether the affidavit Ex.AW-4/A has to be read in support of the case of landlord or not, instead of deciding the same before proceeding further in the case.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners, by placing reliance on Girdhari Lal v. Ritesh Mahajan and Anr. submitted that learned Rent Controller was in error in deferring the decision regarding the affidavit Ex.AW-4/A and he should have decided the issue first before proceeding further.
3. Mr. Hemant Bassi, Advocate, appearing for the respondent has not been able to controvert the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, though he has made efforts to support the order passed by the learned Rent Controller.
4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have with perused the record.
5. This Court, in the case of Girdhari Lal (supra) has held, which reads this:
5. After hearing counsel for the petitioner and perusing the record, I am of the view that the submission made by him has merit. The Apex Court in R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder 's case (supra) has clearly observed that if an objection to the admissibility of a document is raised before such an endorsement is made thereon, the Court is obliged to express its opinion on the question of admissibility of the said document. Following this dictum of the Apex Court, the Rajasthan High Court in LRs of the late Shri Chittar Mal's case (supra) in similar circumstances directed the trial Court to first decide the question about the admissibility of the document before proceeding further in the case. The Delhi High Court also in Smt. Shail Kumari 's case (supra) held to the same effect. The relevant observations made in paras 24 and 25 read as under:
24. Having regard to the above discussion and the judgment of the Division Bench cited above, I am of the considered view that the learned Civil Judge committed material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction in not deciding the question of admissibility of the documents marked "X" and "Y" and of making of exhibit on them immediately, when the dispute was raised or after atleast the application was moved by the petitioner making this request.
25. For the reason stated above, the petition is allowed. The order of the trial Court by which it has deferred the consideration of the question of admissibility of the documents and making of exhibit on the documents marked "X" and marked "Y" to the stage of final argument is set aside. The trial Court is directed to consider this question at an early date.
In view of above, the order dated 22.4.2005, passed by the Rent Controller cannot be sustained and the same is set aside.
6. It is directed that the Rent Controller shall first decide regarding the admissibility of affidavit Ex. AW-4/A, before proceeding further in the matter. He shall also decide the petition expeditiously.