Partly allowed

Sunil Kumar Arora v. Vijay Kumar Sharma, Advocate

Allahabad HC1 May 2018A227/3040/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a small causes suit for rent arrears and ejectment, this High Court set aside an order rejecting an application to file additional evidence. The Court directed the lower court to reconsider the application on merits as the suit was still at the hearing stage.

What did the court decide?

Set aside rejection order; direct lower court to consider application for additional evidence on merits within 4 weeks.

Sunil Kumar Arora Vs Vijay Kumar Sharma, Advocate — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 26

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3040 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Arora Respondent :- Vijay Kumar Sharma, Advocate Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Pathak Counsel for Respondent :- Arvind Kumar Tiwari

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant and learned counsel for landlord-respondent.

¶6

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant that the landlord-respondent had filed Suit No. 11 of 2016 (Vijay Kumar Sharma Advocate vs Sunil Kumar Arora) before the learned Judge, Small Causes Court Hathras on 29.07.2016 for recovery of arrears of rent and for ejectment. In the said SCC Suit, the petitioner filed an application Paper No. 31 C along with list of relevant papers, which he wished to be taken on record as additional evidence. The said application has been rejected by the learned Judge Small Causes Court on the pretext that that case is at the stage of delivery of judgment and has been fixed for 17.03.2018, therefore, at this stage it was not appropriate to take such documents on record along with application.

¶7

Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 14.03.2018 passed by the learned Judge Small Causes Court, the petitioner filed SCC Revision No. 95 of 2018 in the court of District Judge, Hathras. The SCC Revision was rejected on the ground that it was not maintainable against an interlocutory order on 29.03.2018.

¶8

The matter was not finally decided nor the judgment delivered on 17.03.2018 as has been observed in the order impugned dated 14.03.2018 by the learned Judge Small Causes Court instead, when the matter was listed on 17.03.2018 before the Judge Small Causes Court, it was directed that the matter be reheard on certain points for which date was fixed on 02.04.2018. On 02.04.2018, the

¶9

Presiding Officer was on leave and the matter was fixed for argument again on 17.04.2018.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter is continuing at the stage of arguments and the petitioner-tenant submits that the additional evidence for which he had filed Paper No. 31-C are necessary for proper and just disposal of the SCC Suit.

¶11

Moreover, it has been argued that reason given for rejection of the application Paper No. 31-C by the Judge Small Causes Court on 14.03.2018 is belied by later dates being fixed for arguments again. SCC Suit is still pending.

¶12

Learned counsel for the respondent-landlord has pointed out that the additional evidence cannot be taken now at this stage when the arguments have been concluded and the judgement has been reserved as has been observed in the order dated 14.03.2018.

¶13

The order dated 14.03.2018 was challenged in SCC Revision by the petitioner-tenant, which has also been rejected rightly by the learned District Judge on 29.03.2018.

¶14

Having heard the learned counsel for the tenantpetitioner and the learned counsel for the landlordrespondent, this Court has found that the SCC Suit is still at the stage of the hearing. If the tenantpetitioner wishes to file additional document, it would be appropriate that the additional evidence be taken on record and considered on its own merits regarding its admissibility or otherwise at the time of hearing of arguments.

¶15

The order dated 14.03.2018 is set aside.

¶16

Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)/ Judge Small Causes Court, Hathras is directed to reconsider the application Paper No. 31-C in accordance with law on its own merits, and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of four weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him.

¶17

The landlord-respondent shall also be given

¶18

opportunity to rebut such additional evidence if it is found to be admissible by the Judge Small Causes Court, and then appropriate orders on merits be passed.

¶19

With the aforesaid direction, this petition is disposed of.

¶20

Order Date :- 1.5.2018 Sazia

Sunil Kumar Arora v. Vijay Kumar Sharma, Advocate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar Arora v. Vijay Kumar Sharma, Advocate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narayan Mahrotra Vs Additional District JUDGE-15 and Another

Ramautar Vs Hari Bhushan Tyagi and Another

Alaudeen Saifi Vs District Judge Hapur and 2 Others

Naresh Chandra Sharma Vs Additional District and Sessions Judge /F.T.C NO.4, Bulandshahar and 4 Others

Rajeshwar Prasad Agarwal Vs Additional Judge Small Causes Court and Another

Smt. Kamla Devi Vs Smt. Indira Jain