Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Vijay Madanlal Batra, was a tenant in a shop premises owned by the respondent, Deveshkumar Shivhare. The respondent filed Civil Suit No. 535/2004 for eviction and possession on the ground of bonafide requirement. The suit was decreed in favor of the respondent. The petitioner appealed, and the appeal was registered as Regular Civil Appeal No. 237/2009 before the District Judge, Nagpur. During the appellate stage, the petitioner filed an application (Exh. 27) under Order XIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to produce two documents: (1) a certificate from the Head Mistress of Onkarlal Sindhu High School, Jaripatka, Nagpur, stating that the respondent was working as Shikshan Sevak from 1/7/2009; and (2) a document obtained under the Right to Information Act showing the petitioner as a tenant in proceedings to fix taxes of the rented premises. The District Judge dismissed the application by order dated 16/12/2010. The petitioner then filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging that order. The High Court observed that the documents were relevant to the issue of bonafide requirement of the respondent. The certificate regarding the respondent's employment could affect the claim of bonafide requirement, and the RTI document was relevant to show the petitioner's tenancy. The court held that the petitioner should be given an opportunity to produce these documents at the appellate stage. The impugned order was set aside, and the application (Exh. 27) was allowed. The District Judge was directed to consider the documents in accordance with law. The writ petition was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Additional Evidence at Appellate Stage - Order XIII Rule 1 CPC - Bonafide Requirement - The petitioner sought to produce a certificate from the Head Mistress showing the respondent's employment as Shikshan Sevak from 1/7/2009 and a document obtained under the Right to Information Act showing the petitioner as a tenant in tax fixation proceedings. The District Judge rejected the application. The High Court held that the documents were relevant to the bonafide requirement of the respondent and that the petitioner should be given an opportunity to produce them. The impugned order was set aside and the application was allowed. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the District Judge erred in rejecting the petitioner's application under Order XIII Rule 1 CPC to produce additional documents at the appellate stage in an eviction suit.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order dated 16/12/2010, and allowed the application (Exh. 27) filed by the petitioner. The District Judge was directed to consider the documents in accordance with law. Rule made absolute with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Order XIII Rule 1 CPC
- Additional evidence at appellate stage
- Bonafide requirement
- Right to Information Act
- Eviction decree
Case Details
2011 LawText (BOM) (06) 108
Writ Petition No. 877 of 2011
Shri M.M. Sawang for the petitioner
Deveshkumar s/o Balgovind Shivhare
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order of the District Judge rejecting an application for production of additional documents in an eviction appeal.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought to set aside the order dated 16/12/2010 passed by the District Judge, Nagpur, and to allow the application (Exh. 27) for production of documents.
Filing Reason
The petitioner's application under Order XIII Rule 1 CPC to produce two documents (a certificate of respondent's employment and an RTI document) was rejected by the District Judge.
Previous Decisions
The trial court decreed eviction in Civil Suit No. 535/2004. The appeal (Regular Civil Appeal No. 237/2009) was pending before the District Judge when the application for additional evidence was rejected.
Issues
Whether the District Judge erred in rejecting the petitioner's application under Order XIII Rule 1 CPC to produce additional documents at the appellate stage.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the documents were relevant to the bonafide requirement of the respondent and should be allowed to be produced.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the documents sought to be produced were relevant to the issue of bonafide requirement of the respondent, and the petitioner should be given an opportunity to produce them at the appellate stage. The rejection of the application was therefore improper.
Judgment Excerpts
The above petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 16/12/2010 passed by the learned District Judge, Nagpur on application (Exh. 27) filed by the petitioner herein in Regular Civil Appeal No. 237/2009, whereby the said application (Exh. 27) came to be dismissed.
Insofar as first document is concerned, the said document is in the nature of certificate obtained from the Head Mistress of one Onkarlal Sindhu High School, Jaripatka, Nagpur wherein it is mentioned that the respondent herein was working in the said School as Shikshan Sevak from 1/7/2009.
The second document was obtained by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act wherein petitioner is shown as a tenant in the proceedings to fix taxes in question of the rented premises.
Procedural History
The respondent filed Civil Suit No. 535/2004 for eviction and possession, which was decreed. The petitioner appealed to the District Judge, Nagpur (Regular Civil Appeal No. 237/2009). During the appeal, the petitioner filed an application (Exh. 27) under Order XIII Rule 1 CPC to produce additional documents, which was dismissed on 16/12/2010. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order XIII Rule 1
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
- Right to Information Act, 2005:
