Abdul Rasheed vs Srinivas Rao

S.N. Satyanarayana, J.—The defendant in O.S. No. 10/2009 pending on the file of Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Sedam has come up in this writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 25.06.2014 passed on I.A. No. 18 filed u/s 49 of Indian Registration Act. Admittedly, this is a second round of writ petition filed by the petitioner for the same purpose.

The brief facts leading to this writ petition are as under:

Admittedly, the petitioner herein is the defendant in O.S. No. 10/2009, which is filed for ejectment by the respondent herein. The property bearing No. 2-10-87 (old) i.e., 2-10-164 (new) and 2-10-165 (new) a shop premises, situated in Cinema Road, Sedam, is claimed as the property belonging to the respondent, plaintiff in the original suit. He is seeking ejection of respondent from a portion of suit property, which is described as suit shop in O.S. No. 10/2009.

In the said proceeding, an order was passed on 26.03.2014 in denying the right to tenant for producing, marking and relying on certain documents to establish that the plaintiff is not the owner of suit property and he is the tenant under one Satish and according to the defendant, Satish is the owner of the suit property. It is also contended by the defendant that while the order dated 26.03.2014 was passed, the document which he is trying to rely on being lease agreement executed between himself and the said Sathish, alleged owner of the suit property and the said document having already suffered duty and penalty same could not be produced and relied on in the said proceedings. However the said contention was not accepted by the learned Civil Judge for the reasons stated in the order dated 26.03.2014 and accordingly production and marking of said documents was declined.

It is seen that the said order was the subject matter of Writ Petition No. 202769/2014 (GM-CPC). The said matter was disposed of by the coordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 16.04.2014. While doing so, certain observations were made in reserving liberty to the petitioner to specifically state the collateral purpose for which he wants to produce the document in the proceedings before trial court to seek marking of the same. In the said order, it was further observed that if such application is made, the trial Court shall consider the same in accordance with law.

In this background, I.A. 18 was filed u/s 49 of the Indian Registration Act by the defendant. The Civil Judge while considering the said application has observed that though the documents are sought to be marked for the collateral purpose of establishing that defendant is the tenant under one Satish and not the plaintiff, if it is allowed to be marked it would have indirect bearing on the suit for which it is filed by the plaintiff and would render the suit as not maintainable.

The trial Court has also gone through the decisions of the Supreme Court relied on by the defendant in support of his case reported in Avinash Kumar Chauhan Vs. Vijay Krishna Mishra, and also in the matter of Jairam Agarwal V/s. VI Addl. District Judge and Others and other decisions reported in 2009 (5) K.C.C.R. 3969 and 2010 (5) K.C.C.R. 3906 and with reference to the fact situation therein and the relief sought in the application has held that the documents produced by the defendant disclose that it is not for collateral purpose but it is to establish the relationship of tenant and landlord with the so called Satish, who is not party in the proceedings, therefore the same cannot be accepted. Accordingly, dismissed the application by order dated 25.06.2014, which is sought to be challenged in this writ petition.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and as well as learned counsel for contesting respondent in the Court below. On going through the order impugned, it is seen that the finding of the learned trial Judge, who has passed the same after relying on the judgments of the Apex Court and properly distinguishing the same with respect to the facts of the case, appears to be just and proper. Therefore, the question of interfering with the same to consider the correctness or otherwise of said order, does not arise. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.