Ashwini Verma vs Smt. Geeta Panwar
2021 Latest Caselaw 12625 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6281/2021

Ashwini Verma S/o Shri Vinod Kumar Verma, Aged About 36 Years, Resident Of 3/176, Chitrakoot Yojna, Vaishali Naga, Jaipur At Present Hotel Anant Palace, Village Madri Paneriyan, Jhamar- Kotda Road, Near Classic Automobiles, Hiran Magri, Sector No. 6, Udaipur (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. Smt. Geeta Panwar W/o Shri Manohar Singh Panwar, Resident Of House No. 60, Tulsi Nagar, Hiranmagri, Sector 6, Udaipur (Raj.).

2. Manohar Singh Panwar S/o Shri Ram Singh Panwar, Resident Of House No. 60, Tulsi Nagar, Hiranmagri, Sector 6, Udaipur (Raj.).

                                                                ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. Narendra Thanvi

For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Deelip Kawadia



             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

                                    Order

12/08/2021

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved

with the order dated 22.02.2021 passed by the Rent Tribunal,

Udaipur (for short 'the trial court') whereby, the application

preferred on behalf of the petitioner under Order 11 Rule 12 CPC

read with Section 151 CPC with a prayer for directing the

respondents to produce certain documents on record as has been

dismissed.

Brief facts of the case are that the respondents has filed an

application before the trial court for eviction of petitioner from the

(2 of 4) [CW-6281/2021]

rented premises, which has been rented out through a registered

rent deed dated 21.12.2017 for five years. The respondents has

filed eviction petition alleging that the petitioner did not abide by

the terms and conditions of the rent deed and has violated the

same by not paying the rent as per deed, therefore, he may be

evicted from the rented premises.

The petitioner has not filed any reply to the eviction petition

and instead of that has moved an application under Order 11 Rule

12 read with Section 151 CPC with a prayer to direct the

respondents to produce certain documents, description of which is

given in Para No.2 of the application, for proper adjudication of the

dispute between the parties and to enable the petitioner to file

reply to the eviction petition. The application preferred on behalf

of the petitioner under Order 11 Rule 12 read with Section 151

CPC was opposed by the respondents. After hearing the counsel

for the parties, the trial court has passed the impugned order and

has partly allowed the application filed by the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

documents sought to be summoned by the petitioner vide

application under Order 11 Rule 12 read with Section 151 CPC are

relevant for the purpose of adjudication of the dispute between

the parties and are also necessary for the petitioner so that he can

file reply to the eviction petition. It is argued that the trial court

without taking into consideration the fact that the documents

sought to be summoned by the petitioner are most relevant, has

illegally refused to summon certain documents and has only

ordered for summoning only one of the documents. It is further

argued that the order impugned is illegal and deserves to be set

aside and the application filed by the petitioner under Order 11

(3 of 4) [CW-6281/2021]

Rule 12 read with Section 151 CPC deserves to be fully allowed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the

decision of this Court rendered in the case of Sandeep Chittoda

& Anr. Vs. Vijay Lal Tayal, reported in 2012(2) DNJ (Raj.)

1155.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed

the writ petition and submitted that the trial court has not

committed any illegality in passing the impugned order.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

Vide application under Order 11 Rule 12 read with Section

151 CPC, the petitioner has prayed for summoning of as many as

nine documents including the sale deed through which the

respondents had purchased the rented premises, the conversion

document of the said property, permission for construction of

hotel, NOC issued by the Environmental Department, NOC issued

by the Labour Department, NOC issued by the Fire Department,

permission granted by the CID, file deposited by the respondents

seeking electricity connection and copy of the map annexed to the

rent deed.

The trial court is of the opinion that except one document,

that is the map of the rented property annexed with the rent

deed, all other documents are not relevant for the purpose of

deciding the controversy before it. The trial court has also

observed that it has to decide the dispute between the parties in

relation to the rent matter only and is not required to decide the

title of the property. Hence, all other documents, except one are

not relevant for the purpose of deciding the controversy before it.

(4 of 4) [CW-6281/2021]

Having going through the material available on record,

particularly the eviction petition and the rent deed, I am of the

opinion that the documents sought to be summoned by the

petitioner, except one document that is the map of the rented

property annexed with the rent deed are not relevant for the

purpose of deciding the controversy raised before the trial court

and, as such, the trial court has not committed any illegality in

passing the impugned order.

So far as the judgment on which the learned counsel for the

petitioner has placed reliance, I am of the opinion that the said

judgment is of no help to the petitioner because in that case,

initially the Rent Tribunal has ordered for summoning the

document from one of the parties, but later on, when the said

party has failed to produce the same on the pretext that the same

is not in power and possession of it, then the other party has

moved an application and requested the trial court to summon the

said documents from the Commercial Taxes Department, however,

the Rent Tribunal has refused to accept the said prayer, then this

Court has held that once the Rent Tribunal has come to the

conclusion that the said documents is relevant for the purpose of

deciding the controversy, it should have summoned the same from

the Commercial Taxes Department and refusal of it is not proper.

In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in

this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed as such.

Stay petition is also dismissed.

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

62-pratibha/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)