Delhi High Court
Balbir Singh & Anr. vs Devi Charan Gupta Decd & Ors. on 5 March, 2012
Author: Indermeet Kaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 05.03.2012
+ CM(M) 277/2012 & CM Nos.4125-26/2012
BALBIR SINGH & ANR ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Arjun Bhandari, Adv.
versus
DEVI CHARAN GUPTA DECD & ORS ..... Respondent
Through Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)
1 Order impugned is the order dated 23.01.2012 which has
dismissed the review petition filed by the petitioner under Order XLVII
of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') seeking a
review of the order dated 03.05.2011. The order dated 03.05.2011 was
passed on an application filed by the defendant under Order XVI Rules
1 & 2 of the Code.
2 Record shows that the present eviction petition has been filed by
the landlord against the tenant on the ground of respondent having
caused substantial damage to the tenanted premises. Written statement
was filed. Evidence has been led by the respective parties. At this stage,
the present application (dated 13.10.2010) had been filed by the
defendant seeking permission of the Court to examine three witnesses
details of which find mention in para 7 of the application; contention
was that they are vital witnesses. The impugned order had rejected the
prayer qua the two witnesses Karandeep Singh and Country Manager
(BSP) International Air Transport Association (IATA). It had rightly
noted that the name of Karandeep Singh had not appeared in the list of
witnesses; there was no explanation as to why Preetam Singh had been
summoned when the matter was fixed for the evidence of the petitioner.
The petitioner now seeking to substitute Karandeep Singh with Preetam
Singh was for no valid reason; submission that Preetam Singh was
indisposed at the relevant time not being supported by any medical
certificate, the Court had rightly declined this prayer. As noted supra
that this application has been filed after the evidence had concluded
between the parties. Second witness sought to be witnessed which was a
person form IATA to bring the original record of certain photographs of
the premises taken in the year 1982 was also dismissed. This finding
also calls for no interference; admittedly these photographs were taken
in the year 1982. On a specific query put to the learned counsel for the
petitioner as to how these photographs would effect the case of the
petitioner, his answer is that these photographs were taken at the time
when IATA had been granted permission to run his business from the
tenanted premises; however why these photographs were not filed
earlier in this entire intervening period has not been explained; even on a
specific query put to learned counsel on this count, there is no answer to
this. Counsel for the petitioner has also failed to explain as to how these
photographs would substantiate or help the defence of the petitioner;
these documents not having been filed at the relevant stage and having
been filed at such a belated state leads to only but one obvious
conclusion which is the role of the tenant to delay the proceedings as far
as possible. This submission was also rightly declined by the order dated
03.05.2011. The order dated 03.05.2011 had allowed the petitioner to
get the record summoned for production of certified copies of certain
documents which were purported to have been filed before Ms. Saumya
Chauhan, Civil Judge.
3 This order dated 03.05.2011 was the subject matter of a review
petition which had been dismissed by the impugned order. The Court
had been guided by the guidelines of Order XLVII of the Code. There
was no error apparent on the face of the record or new facts which were
brought to the notice of the Court which were not in the knowledge of
the petitioner even after exercise of due diligence when the impugned
order was passed, calling for any interference in the order dated
03.05.2011. In this background, the review petition was rightly
dismissed. The impugned order calls for no interference.
4 Petition is without any merit. Dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J
MARCH 05, 2012
A
