Quashed

Manoj Motwani v. Darshan Kaur

Chhattisgarh HC9 Feb 2012WP227/3980/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitioner challenged the trial court's rejection of his application to examine the Income Tax Officer as a witness. The court quashed the impugned order, holding it arbitrary to reject relevant evidence used to prove the respondent's son was employed.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 10.05.2011 rejecting the application to examine Income Tax Officer as witness was set aside.

Manoj Motwani Vs Darshan Kaur — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

•ST??'NSIE B^ffi

¶2

In the Hiah Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur WP (227)-_3tf)&0 / 36W- >1 l

¶3

Petitioner/ Manoj Motwani, Age 49 Y S/o Defendant Late A.H. Motwani, R/o Shop # 3, Mohan Singh Market, MG Road, Raipur

¶4

Versus

¶5

Respondents / Smt. Darshan Kaur Ahluwalia, Plaintiff Age 57 Yrs., w/o Mahendrapal Singh Ahluwalia, R/o 215, <A »J^ N' ^-"" ...••-•' Adarsh Nagar, Narmada ...••-" :,'?"'"^fi-s""^..-^""^} 1 Road/Jabalpur/MP ^ x Petition Under Art. 227 of the Constitution oflndia

¶6

L/-'

¶7

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶8

W.P.f227)No. 3980 of 2011

PET1TIONER Defendant

Manoj Motwani

Versus

RESPONDENT

Smt. Darshan Kaur Ahluwalia

¶14

Plaintiff

¶15

(WRIT PETtTION UNDERARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDtA}

¶16

(Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Mr. N.K^Agarwat, J,)

¶17

Present : Shri Raja Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay K Agrawal with Shri Sourabh Sharma, Advocates for the respondent.

¶18

ORAL ORDER

¶19

(Passed on 09/02/2012)

¶20

Instant petition filed underArticle 227 ofthe Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 10.05.2011 passed by Vth Civil Judge Class-11, Raipur, in Civil Suit No. 147-A/11, whereby and whereunder the petitioner's applicaticn filed under Order 16 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC has been dismissed.

¶21

The facts in brief, shorn of details, and necessary for the disposat of this petition tie in a narrow compass. The respondenVplaintiff filed a suit for ej'ectment against the petitioner inter alia on the ground she is in need of suit premises for bonafide need of her son Hardeep Singh Ahluwalia who is unemployed. By filing written statement, the claim was denied by the petitioner. The petitioner herein filed some certified copy of the sale-deeds which shows the son of plaintiff is having Permanent Account Number and according to petitioner he is not unemptoyed. To prove the above defence the petitioner tried to obtain the income tax returns filed by the son of respondent under Right to Informatton Act. The same

¶22

'-iC^St

¶23

-K^, I ^

¶24

was refused by the income tax authorities vide order dated 11.08.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application before the trialcourt for permission to examine Income Tax Officer as his witness. The same was declined by the trial court for want of proper reasons.

The petitioner herein preferred a Writ Petition being WP (227) No. 3559 of 2010. This court, vide order dated 19.01.2011 granted liberty to the petitioner to file fresh application by assigning proper reasons to call Income Tax Officer as his witness.

¶29

Thereafter, the petitioner filed instant application under Order 16 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC assigning the reasons in detail for permission to call Income Tax Officer as his witness. In reply, the respondent did not controvert the fact that her son is having PAN number. The trial court, having found the documents are not relevant for just decision of the case, rejected the application. Hence this petition.

¶30

Shri Raja Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit the suit is filed on the ground of bpnafide need of son by the respondent showing him as unemployed, whereas, according to the petitioner, he is employed; earning member of family and is paying income tax. He further submits that by mentioning PAN number, he tried his level best to obtain certified copy of the income tax returns filed by the son of respondent, but the income tax authorities have refused to issue such copies, and therefore, only option left with the petitioner in order to prove his defence is by calling Income Tax Oflicer Mvith the income tax returns

¶31

^^^^^;wi-Eii^;RRS8eaiK38i ,,..a!^jia;?s^'^as^g;;®'iW^:^^'r38.ij;;;

¶32

-^ ^^s^^y^, &.-., ;%, "w

¶33

submitted by the plaintiffs son, and the court below has committed jurisdictional^{illegalityinrejectingthe} plaintiff's prayer.

¶34

Per contra, Shri Sanjay K Agrawal and Shri Sourabh Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent supported the order impugned and submitted in the facts and circumstances of the case, the court below has not committed any error in rejecting the petitioner's prayer.

¶35

¶36

I have heard the coynsel appearing for the parties and perused the order impugned.

¶37

As per Order 16 Rule 3 of CPC, the court may, for reasons to be recorded, permit a party to call, whether by summoning through court or otherwise, any witness, other than those whose names appear in the list referred to in sub-rule (1).

¶38

¶39

In the instantcase, admittedly there is no mention of name of Income Tax authorities as defendant's witness in the list filed by the petitioner. After obtaining PAN numberofthe respondent's son and by mentioning the same, the instant application has been filed by the petitioner for permission of the court for examination of Income Tax Authorities as his witness. In reply to it, the respondent did not controvert the fact that respondent's son is having PAN number. It is also not in dispute that the Income Tax Authorities have declined to supply certified copy of the income tax returns filed by the respondent's son under RTI. Further, the court below, on the face, has committed an error in holding that the fact which petitioner want to prove is not relevant for the just decision of

¶40

-c-l"'-wmi^-.m._^y^t>"".h~(^*^*~^^^f">=^^

's^

"46S

¥il"'-|f9S

•s}soo o} se japjo ON 'Aisnoiiipedxs }ms

¶45

eqt ep.ioep 01 pepejip si (jnoo |eut eqi •s9|m jed se ssau^iM SIL| se ssituoqinv xei euooui eqi uoujains 0} peuiiujed si jsuoiiited 941 •spise )ss si i. 9|ny 91. jepjQ jepun p9|y uoiieoiidde s.jsuoi^ed aLfi papefsj sei^ moieq ynoo 94} L|oiqM Aq I.I.QZ-SO'OI. psiep peuSndLui japjo eq} ^o yed AIUQ 'peMO||e AiBuipjoooe si uoimed •ino apeuj si aou3J9jj9}U! jo^ punoj6 'eAoqeuiejeLi psuoiiusLU suosesj Q\J^ jo-|

¶46

•Ol

¶47

•peAo|dLueun JQ psAoidiue si uos s.iuepuodsej eqi jaqisqM 'anssi ui qoniu AJSA si )! 'AJBJIUOO aqi uo 'aseo 941

¶48

¶49

/f~^ '^
E ^^ 1
^. ''"h^M

Manoj Motwani v. Darshan Kaur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Motwani v. Darshan Kaur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yogehs and Others Vs Smt. Malti Verma and Another

Hol Sai Vs the Collector and Anr.

Smt.Trivedi Bai Lohar Vs Hemant Kumar Sharam and Anr.

Uderram Sahu Vs Parniya Bai Sahu and Anr.

Smt Neerabai and Ors. Vs Mathanlal and Another

Smt. Laxmi Bai Manikpuri Vs Itwari Kumar Kannoje