Anand Dhakad vs Manoj And Others

Binod Kumar Dwivedi, J

This Civil Revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter for short referred as, 'CPC') has been preferred against the impugned order dated 07/01/2026 passed by Rent Controlling Authority, Sub Division Juni Indore, Indore in Case No.14/A-90 (7)/24-25, whereby an application filed under Section 142(3) of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (hereinafter for short referred as, 'BSA') read with Section 151 of CPC for re-examination of the petitioner / applicant, has been rejected.

2 . Learned counsel for the petitioner / applicant submits that the applicant before the Rent Controlling Authority being a disabled person has filed eviction suit against the respondents / non-applicants under Section 23A(a) of the M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. During cross-examination, a question was asked by counsel that, "whether he has purchased the suit shop just for getting it vacated" and reply was given in 'Yes'. Explanation with regard to this 'Yes' could not be offered at that time and at the end of cross-examination, the applicant requested for giving explanation for that but he was told by the Rent Controlling Authority that he can file application on the next day. On the very next day, application (Annex.-A/4) was filed but the same was rejected by the impugned order stating that the applicant wants to fill-up lacuna, which appeared in cross-examination, which is not permissible and therefore, application was rejected. He submits that the impugned order is bad in law. Petitioner has each and every right under Section 142(3) of the BSA of re-examination for offering explanation with regard to the aforesaid, which has not been given. On these grounds, learned counsel submits that the impugned order is not in accordance with law, hence by allowing this revision impugned order be set aside and an opportunity be given for re-examination so that the applicant can offer his explanation to the aforesaid 'Yes', which has been said in question put by counsel for the respondents.

3 . Heard and considered the submissions raised and perused the available record.

4 . From perusal of the record, it is not in dispute that query as mentioned hereinabove was raised and reply was 'Yes' from the petitioner / applicant, but once he wants to offer an explanation, he should have been allowed for re-examination. That opportunity has not been given and the application for that purpose has been dismissed.

This Court is of the view that if an explanation comes on record, it will not any how prejudice the tenants / respondents herein, but it will subserve the ends of justice and will also help Rent Controlling Authority in disposing of the proceeding before him.

Therefore, this Revision Petition filed on behalf of the petitioner / applicant is allowed and the impugned order dated 07/01/2026 (Annex.-A/1) is hereby set aside with a direction to the Rent Controlling Authority that he will afford an opportunity of re-examination to the petitioner and that will only with regard to the question put during his cross-examination and answer given. If the respondents / non-applicants prays for recross-examination, opportunity will be given on the facts which appear in re-examination of petitioner / applicant.

Accordingly, this civil revision stands allowed and disposed of. Certified copy today itself.