Full Text
Translation output
A-il
% 26.07.2011
Present: Mr. Mahendra Rana, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. J.K. Jam, Advocate for the respondents.
+ CM (M) No. 986/2009 & CM No. 13125/2009 (stay)
*
The order impugned before this court is the order dated
3 1.08.2009 vide which the application filed by the defendant under
Order 13 Rule 1 & 2 read with Order 7 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil
Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') had been dismissed. The defendant has sought permission of this court to place on record certified copies of the two inspection reports of the
MCD wherein by virtue of which he wanted to substantiate that the plaintiff is a tenant in the suit property @ of Rs. 70 per month.
It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant that photocopies of the documents had, in fact, already been filed and this is reflected in the order dated 03.10.2007 vide which the p court had dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under
Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code.
In para 5 of the said order, the court has noted that the defendant has relied upon the photocopies of the inspection book of MCD to show his possession and has also placed on record copies of the rent agreement which was in Urdu alongwith its translation.
Issues have been framed on 13.11.2007; admittedly, 2011:DHC:7760 photocopies of the documents which the petitioner had sought to place on record vide the present application were on record and they found reflected in the order dated 03.10.2007. The provisions of Order 13 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code clearly stipulate that the parties shall produce all documentary evidence on or before the settlement of issues; the photocopies of the documents which the defendant now wishes to place on record were already on the court record; the impugned order in not granting him permission to place the same on record when admittedly, photocopies of the
I.; same had already been taken on record suffers from an infirmity.
The impugned order is accordingly set aside. The certified copies of the two inspection reports of the MCD are taken on record.
Petition is disposed of subject to payment of Rs. 5000 as cost.
Copy of the order be given dasti under the sinatures of the
Present: Mr. Mahendra Rana, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. J.K. Jam, Advocate for the respondents.
+ CM (M) No. 986/2009 & CM No. 13125/2009 (stay)
*
The order impugned before this court is the order dated
3 1.08.2009 vide which the application filed by the defendant under
Order 13 Rule 1 & 2 read with Order 7 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil
Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') had been dismissed. The defendant has sought permission of this court to place on record certified copies of the two inspection reports of the
MCD wherein by virtue of which he wanted to substantiate that the plaintiff is a tenant in the suit property @ of Rs. 70 per month.
It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant that photocopies of the documents had, in fact, already been filed and this is reflected in the order dated 03.10.2007 vide which the p court had dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under
Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code.
In para 5 of the said order, the court has noted that the defendant has relied upon the photocopies of the inspection book of MCD to show his possession and has also placed on record copies of the rent agreement which was in Urdu alongwith its translation.
Issues have been framed on 13.11.2007; admittedly, 2011:DHC:7760 photocopies of the documents which the petitioner had sought to place on record vide the present application were on record and they found reflected in the order dated 03.10.2007. The provisions of Order 13 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code clearly stipulate that the parties shall produce all documentary evidence on or before the settlement of issues; the photocopies of the documents which the defendant now wishes to place on record were already on the court record; the impugned order in not granting him permission to place the same on record when admittedly, photocopies of the
I.; same had already been taken on record suffers from an infirmity.
The impugned order is accordingly set aside. The certified copies of the two inspection reports of the MCD are taken on record.
Petition is disposed of subject to payment of Rs. 5000 as cost.
Copy of the order be given dasti under the sinatures of the
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
P JULY26, 2011 rb
2011:DHC:7760
P JULY26, 2011 rb
2011:DHC:7760
JUDGMENT