Delhi District Court
Sh. Rajiv Wadhwa vs Sh. G.P. Aggrawal on 2 May, 2015
In the Court of Shri Naresh Kumar Laka
Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller
District Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
E. No. 500/06
Unique ID No. 02402C0172642006
Sh. Rajiv Wadhwa
.....Petitioner
Versus
Sh. G.P. Aggrawal
....Respondent
Dated: 02.05.2015.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed under Section 14 (1) (a) of the DRC Act seeking eviction on account of non payment of rent. This case has been filed in the year 2006 and after conclusion of the evidence the matter was fixed for final arguments. At this stage, the respondent filed two applications, one is under section 151 CPC and second is under section 340 Cr.PC. On next date, the respondent moved two more applications i.e. under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and under section 151 CPC. The said applications have been strongly opposed by the petitioner on the ground that the same were filed just to delay the matter. The application under section 340 Cr.PC was dismissed vide order dated 16.09.2014.
2. I have heard the Ld. counsels of both the parties on the latest application under sections 151 CPC filed on 16.09.2014 with the prayer for recalling PW-1. The previous two applications under section 151 CPC and under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC are interconnected with each other. Accordingly, E No. 506/06 Rajiv Wadhwa V/s G.P. Aggarwal Page No. 1/4 this court intends to decide all the applications together.
3. As far as the first application under Section 151 CPC filed on 17.07.2014 is concerned, the same has been filed with a prayer to dismiss the present case. In the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, it was prayed that the prayer clause of the application under section 151 CPC filed on 17.07.2014 may be allowed to be amended and it was sought to add one more prayer to the effect that one document i.e. Annexure- R A-1 may be taken on record for clarification. From the manner of drafting of application under Section 151 CPC it is clear that reference has been made to the document RA1 but no prayer was made in the prayer clause for taking on record the said document. The said error appears to be accidental slip or clerical mistake. Accordingly the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is allowed.
4. In the instant case, the evidence has already been concluded by both the parties and the case was already fixed for final arguments.
5. The document, i.e., R1A is the copy of a cheque towards payment of Rs. 13,600/- dated 05.11.2005 along with copy of another cheque of Rs. 5,200/- dated 23.06.2004 which are sought to be placed on record at this stage of final arguments. From the perusal of the file, it is clear that the said documents were already on record and were filed along with affidavit filed in evidence and on taking objection by the opposite counsel, the said documents were marked as Mark A on 22.05.2013 at the time of tendering the affidavit in evidence. Thus it is clear that the said documents were already on record and there was no need to file the application under Section 151 CPC for placing on record the said document. Even the evidence of the concerned bank official were also led by the respondent to E No. 506/06 Rajiv Wadhwa V/s G.P. Aggarwal Page No. 2/4 prove payment of the cheque of Rs. 13,600/-. Even the counsel for the petitioner disclosed in the written arguments as well as oral arguments that he has no objection for admitting the payment of the said amount. Under these circumstances, it is clear that the present application has been filed without going through the file which delayed this case. Accordingly the said application is dismissed with cost of Rs. 4,000/-. Out of which Rs. 2,000/- shall be paid to the petitioner and Rs. 2000/- shall be paid to the DLSA.
6. In the latest application filed under Section 151 CPC on 16.09.2014, it is stated that certain important points were left which are required to be clarified/asked from the PW-1.
7. This case is very old pertaining to the year 2006 and from the previous proceedings, it is clear that the PW-1 Sh. Rajeev Verma has been cross- examined by previous counsel Sh. P.C. Gupta in the year 2006 and thereafter evidence was concluded by both the parties. From the previous order sheets, it is clear that the respondent engaged the present counsel, namely, Sh. Amit Swami long back in the year 2011 and his attendance also found mentioned in various previous order sheets.
8. There is no specific reason disclosed by the counsel Sh. Amit Swami as to why, he does not take any steps for recalling of PW-1 at the earlier stages of the case especially when he was pursuing this case since 2011. The counsel for the respondent argued that the petitioner had brought certain new facts in the written arguments and as such he wants to recall PW-1 for his cross examination on the said points. It is a settled law that the final decision of the case is made on the basis of pleadings and evidence on record and if any new fact has been added in the written argument, the same will not be considered unless it is brought on record by leading E No. 506/06 Rajiv Wadhwa V/s G.P. Aggarwal Page No. 3/4 evidence. This case will also be decided on the basis of evidence on record and not on the basis of written arguments which are not part of evidence.
9. Moreover, the counsel for the respondent disclosed that the petitioner did not file rent agreement on record and the payment of the amount of pugri of Rs. 80,000/- were also denied by the petitioner and as such the counsel for the respondent wants to cross-examine the petitioner/PW1 on the said points. The counsel for the respondent could have asked questions relating to the above aspects at the time of cross- examination of the petitioner. Now the counsel for the respondent cannot be allowed to fill up the lacuna. Moreover, keeping in view the claim of the petitioner which is based on enhanced rent, the questions relating to the execution of rent agreement and the payment of pugri amount are completely irrelevant.
10. Thus, I am the opinion that the present application has been filed at a very belated stage i.e. after nine years of examination of the PW-1 without showing any sufficient cause. Accordingly, the said application is dismissed with cost of Rs. 2,000/- to be paid to the petitioner for causing further delay in the present case.
11. Put up for entire cost of Rs. 4,000/- to the petitioner and Rs. 2,000/- to the DLSA and for final arguments on 28.05.2015.
(Naresh Kumar Laka) SCJ-cum-RC Shahdara, KKD Court/02.05.15 E No. 506/06 Rajiv Wadhwa V/s G.P. Aggarwal Page No. 4/4