Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.@mdashRespondents No. 1 to 3 filed an eviction petition against the petitioner and respondent No. 4 u/s 14 (1Kb) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 alleging that the petitioner as tenant had sublet the premises to original respondent No. 4-company. The said respondent No. 4 has been deleted from the array of parties in the present proceedings though it continues to be a party before the Trial Court.
2. At the stage when the petitioner was being cross examined, an application was filed by respondent No. 1 to 3 under Order 11 Rule 14 r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (herein-after referred to as the said Code) seeking production of certain documents relating to the Company. This application was disposed of by the order dated 16.10.2002 in terms whereof certain documents as prayed for by respondents No. 1 to 3 were directed to be produced by the petitioner. The petitioner was however not satisfied with the said order and filed a review application which was disposed of by the order dated 24.02.2003. The operative portion reads as under:
Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, I review the earliest order dated 16.10.2002 to the effect that Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association need not be placed on the record since they are already there. The requirement for production of the form ''K'' is also withdrawn. As regards remaining documents in para 3(i), (iv), (v) and (vii) it is directed that the said documents shall be kept ready by the witness at the time of his cross examination and the production thereof on the record shall be decided in terms of the question which maybe put in the cross examination and answers thereon. At the costs of repetition, the documents shall be taken on the record subject to decision as to their admissibility and relevancy and the responses to the questions which may be put in the cross examination.
3. On the cross examination of the petitioner being completed, the petitioner sought re-examination on the ground that no questions had been put in respect of these documents which in fact had been filed along with reply of the petitioner to the application of respondents No. 1 to 3 under Order 11 Rule 14 of the said Code. Such request for re-examination was declined by the order dated 14.09.2004. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application u/s 163 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Evidence Act'') and the" said application was also disposed of stating that the matter stood already adjudicated by the order dated 14.09.2004.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks to rely upon the provisions of Section 163 of the Evidence Act-submitting that the plea for re-examination was really not called for and what the petitioner was really praying for was for the documents to be accepted in view of provisions of Section 163 of the Evidence Act. The said provision reads as under:
Giving, as evidence, of document called for and produced on notice When a party calls for a document which he has given the other party notice to produce, and such document is produced and inspected by the party calling for its production, he is bound to give it as evidence if the party producing it requires him to do so.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks to rely upon the judgment in
6. Learned Counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 3 does not dispute the aforesaid legal position but submits that the judgments would have no application to the facts of the present case in view of the order passed on 24.02.2003 on the review application of the petitioner as the documents were really never produced and all that was directed was that the petitioner should keep available the documents and it shall be decided in terms of the questions which may be put in the cross examination and answers thereon. Since no questions were put, there would be no question of reliance being placed on those documents.
7. The petitioner had filed copies of certain documents along with the reply. On directions being passed by the Trial Court for the documents to be produced, the petitioner filed a review application. Thus the final direction which was passed in respect of documents is as contained in the order dated 24.02.2003 as the earlier order dated 16.10.2002 was reviewed. It is clearly mentioned that the documents may be kept ready by the witness at the time of his cross examination and production thereof on record would be decided in terms of the questions which may be put in the cross examination and answers thereon. The Trial Court went on to further state that the documents would be taken on record subject to the decision as to their admissibility and reliance and the response to the questions which may be put in the cross examination. No questions were put in cross examination and thus the occasion for the reliance on these documents never arose.
8. In view thereof, the provisions of Section 163 of the Evidence Act and the legal position as enunciated in the aforesaid two judgments would have no application to the facts of the present case.
9. Dismissed.
CM No. 3471/2005
No further directions are called for on this application.
The application stands disposed of.
