AMULYA KUMAR SINGH vs MARWARI RELIEF SOCIETY

The petitioner is aggrieved of order dated 06.12.2010 passed in Eviction Title Suit No.5 of 1991 by which the application seeking compliance of

notices issued under Order XI Rule 16 CPC and Order XII Rule 3 CPC has been dismissed.Â

Title Eviction Suit No.5 of 1991 was instituted by Marwari Relief Society for a decree of eviction of the defendant from suit property and a decree

for Rs.22,464/- as arrears of maintenance charges. The suit was contested by the petitioner by filing a written statement disputing that the plaintiff

is charitable institution and that the person who has sworn the affidavit is not the authorized person. The plaintiff’s stand that it has granted

lease and license for temporary accommodation to various other persons has been disputed. It is the stand of the petitioner that for occupation of

the residential cottages/rooms within the premises of the plaintiff, all the persons are required to make payment of maintenance charges and they can

occupy the respective premises as long as they desire. Issues were settled in the suit on 20.12.2004. When the suit was running for plaintiff’s

evidence the aforesaid application seeking compliance of notices issued to the plaintiff by the defendant was filed.Â

The eviction suit was initially decreed ex-parte on 24.09.1992, however, the ex-parte judgment and decree was set-aside and the trial Judge was

directed to take fresh evidence. The trial Judge referring to the order passed in Civil Revision No.163 & 183 of 1999(R) whereby the revisional

court has directed expeditious disposal of the suit and holding that the plaintiff has already replied the notices which were served by the defendant,

dismissed the aforesaid application.Â

Normally, inspection of documents, interrogatories etc. shall be done before settlement of the issues in the suit, however, there is no absolute bar in

law for making an application by a party seeking production of a document by the other party. A decision on such application would depend on the

facts and circumstances of the case and in appropriate cases an adverse inference may be drawn against a party which has failed to produce a

document which ought to have been produced, if production of such a document is necessary for adjudication of the dispute between the parties.Â

In view of the peculiar facts of this case and the order passed in Civil Revision No.163 & 183 of 1999(R), seven years after the impugned order

was passed in the suit I am not inclined to interfere in the mater, however, a liberty is reserved with the petitioner to reiterate his stand during the

trialÂ

The writ petition stands disposed of.