Delhi District Court
Sh. Brij Bhushan Gupta vs . Sh. Yogesh Chandra Garg & Anr. on 6 September, 2014
IN THE COURT OF MS. ANJANI MAHAJAN, CIVIL JUDGE10
(CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
SUIT NO. 122/11
Sh. Brij Bhushan Gupta Vs. Sh. Yogesh Chandra Garg & Anr.
ORDER:
1. Vide this composite order I shall decide two applications of the defendant no. 2 i.e. the application U/o 16 R 6 r/w Section 151 CPC for issuance of summons for production of documents and the application U/o 8 R 1A (2) and 1A (3) CPC for placing on record the documents.
2. First, taking up the application of the defendant no. 2 U/o 16 R 6 CPC, it is the defendant's case that the plaintiff has produced the photocopies of certain documents relating to survey reports, lease rent, allotment etc. and the said documents are forged and fabricated. The defendant further contends that Sh. Mulak Raj was the original allottee of the suit property bearing no. 19/121, Basti Sarai, Sarai Rohilla, Dehi 35 and he constructed two Kuccha rooms and constituted Sh. Kishan as his power of attorney and handed over possession of the two Kucha Rooms to him. It is averred that Sh. Mulak Raj remained the original allottee which could be proved from the survey reports of the year 1958 onwards. It is also stated that the survey Suit No. 122/11 Sh. Brij Bhushan Gupta Vs. Sh. Yogesh Chandra Garg & Anr. 1/6 reports for the year 19701971 and 19721973 have the name of Sh. Mulak Raj as the original allottee and that the Slum & J.J. Department cancelled the allotment of Sh. Mulak Raj later on and lease was granted to Sh. Krishan Lal on 25.08.1971. The defendant contended further that the plaintiff had claimed that the suit property was finally allotted jointly to Sh. Krishan Lal and Sh. Brij Bhushan Gupta on 19.05.1983.
3. The defendant alleged that the original documents and concerned file of the suit property Bearing No. 19/121, Basti Sarai, Sarai Rohilla is in possession of the Assistant Director (Property Slum & JJ Department, Property Section), Municipal Corporation of Delhi and it is prayed that the survey records of the suit property along with the record pertaining to lease and allotment of the said property may be summoned from the office of the Assistant Director (Property) Slum & JJ Department. Counsel for plaintiff opposed the application and argued that the defendant had not filed the list of witnesses and nowhere in the written statement had the defendant stated about her status in the property. He submitted that there was no specific denial of the plaintiff's claim and that the rent receipts issued in favour of the plaintiff had been proved by the plaintiff and there was no need to call for the records. He also argued that the defendant should have called for the documents at the time of plaintiff's cross examination if the documents were Suit No. 122/11 Sh. Brij Bhushan Gupta Vs. Sh. Yogesh Chandra Garg & Anr. 2/6 felt necessary by the defendant no. 2 and the present application was belated. He argued that the defendant was merely a licensee and admittedly was not related to Sh. Mulak Raj or Sh. Krishan Lal while the plaintiff had stated in his affidavit that the property came to him in joint tenancy along with Sh. Krishan Lal and that Sh. Krishan Lal had sold all the debris to the plaintiff by way of a receipt. Ld. counsel for defendant no. 2 on the other hand countered that in the written statement in the preliminary objection no. 3 the defendant had taken the stand that the plaintiff was not the absolute and exclusive owner of the suit property and plaintiff had only placed on record one consolidated receipt of lease/rent which, he contended, was manipulated.
4. Now, while it is correct that the defendant no. 2 has not placed on record the list of witnesses but admittedly through the present application U/o 16 R 6 CPC the defendant is only seeking to call certain documents in evidence through the MCD which documents basically apart from being the official documents/records of the Government Department as such only pertain to the details regarding the allotment of the suit property. The plaintiff's suit is one for permanent and mandatory injunction inter alia directing the defendants to vacate the suit property on the ground of being the exclusive lessee of the property and defendants being permissive users Suit No. 122/11 Sh. Brij Bhushan Gupta Vs. Sh. Yogesh Chandra Garg & Anr. 3/6 being his son and daughterinlaw. It is not as if the defendant no. 2 is traveling beyond the objections raised in her written statement in as much as she has in fact raised the objection that the plaintiff is not the absolute and exclusive owner of the suit property and has denied that the plaintiff is the authorized lessee of the suit property. The production of the said Government records would in fact help in elucidating the truth and would be relevant as they would aid in establishing whether or not the plaintiff is the sole lessee of the suit property and are only being called in furtherance of the defendant seeking to prove her defence for which in my opinion one opportunity can be granted to the defendant. There is of course delay by defendant in moving this application, the application same could have been moved at the stage of plaintiff's evidence itself or atleast the list of witnesses/documents should have been filed by the defendant mentioning the records sought to be summoned however merely because the application is belated it does not justify its dismissal outright and since it appears that the documents are relevant and as the endeavour of the court is always to reach to the truth of the matter and do complete justice to the parties therefore I allow the present application however subject to cost of Rs. 500/ to be paid to the plaintiff. The defendant to file the PF for summoning the witness/documents as mentioned in the application for next date of hearing. The diet money be paid to the Suit No. 122/11 Sh. Brij Bhushan Gupta Vs. Sh. Yogesh Chandra Garg & Anr. 4/6 witness at spot.
5. Coming to the application U/o 8 R 1A (2) and (3) CPC, the defendant contends that the copies of the documents procured under the RTI were not in her possession at the time of filing her written statement. The defendant has also mentioned about the application U/o 16 R 6 CPC for summoning the documents from the Slum & JJ Department (which stand allowed as above). It is stated in this application that the documents now produced may be taken in evidence. There is no mention in the application as to exactly what are the documents which the defendant seeks to place on record and as correctly argued by Ld. counsel for the plaintiff, the application is extremely vague. During the course of the oral arguments to the specific query of the court in this regard counsel for defendant no. 2 stated that the three documents obtained from RTI from the office of the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police (North District) were the documents which the defendant sought to place on record. These inter alia included the copy of the DD entry no. 80B dated 22.07.2013 wherein it was stated inter alia regarding a quarrel having taken place between the landlord and the tenant. Counsel for defendant argued that these documents were relevant since they showed the conduct of the plaintiff as being a quarrel some person since the reference in the DD entry to 'landlord' was to the plaintiff. Counsel for defendant argued that he Suit No. 122/11 Sh. Brij Bhushan Gupta Vs. Sh. Yogesh Chandra Garg & Anr. 5/6 had put questions to the plaintiff/PW1 in his cross examination regarding complaint being lodged against the plaintiff by the tenant one Smt. Anjali Pandey but he had denied the same.
6. Now, the defendant has not chosen to amend the written statement to include any such pleas of purported quarrel taking place between the plaintiff and the said Smt. Anjali Pandey therefore this plea is really beyond the defendant's pleadings and even otherwise even if the defendant's case be that the plaintiff had quarreled with the tenant on 22.07.2013 the same is not at all relevant to the matters in issue in the present case, any quarrel/dispute between the plaintiff and some third person whether a purported tenant or any other person, has no bearing on the present case wherein the basic issue is regarding the right of the plaintiff if any to recover possession of the suit premises from the defendants whom plaintiff claims to be his licensees. Thus, the documents pertaining to the documents obtained through RTI by the defendant from the office of the DCP (North) are irrelevant and as such beyond the pleadings of the defendant. The application of the defendant no. 2 U/o 8 R 1A (2) and 1A (3) CPC is thus dismissed being without merit.
Announced in the open court ANJANI MAHAJAN
On 06.09.2014 Civil Judge - 10 (Central)
06.09.2014
Suit No. 122/11 Sh. Brij Bhushan Gupta Vs. Sh. Yogesh Chandra Garg & Anr. 6/6