Balaraman vs B. Nemichand

R. Mala, J.—The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decreetal order dated 14.03.2014 made in I.A.No.8 of 2014 in R.C.O.P.No.8 of 1997 on the file of the Rent Controller-cum-Principal District Munsif Court, Tindivanam.

The respondents herein as the petitioners filed R.C.O.P.No.8 of 1997 for eviction on several grounds not only on wilful default and owners occupation. The revision petitioner herein as the tenant resisting the same by way of filing counter. During pendency of R.C.O.P., the revision petitioner herein has filed an application in I.A.No.8 of 2014 for reception of some documents. The respondents herein have raised objections. On considering the objections raised by the respondents, the trial Court allowed the application in respect of document Nos.8 to 12 and dismissed the application in respect of other documents, against which, the present revision petition is preferred by the revision petitioner/tenant.

Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that it is true, the document Nos. 1 to 7 are only xerox copies. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, it was stated that at the time of filing counter, original of those documents were misplaced and hence he was unable to let primary evidence. It is further submitted that xerox copies are also admissible evidence, if the original documents were missing and not traceable and that factum is not considered by the trial Court. It is further submitted that Document Nos. 13 and 14 are Bank documents and hence, no prejudice would be caused to the respondents/landlords, if the documents are marked and they have every right to cross-examine the same at the time of marking those documents subject to proof and relevancy. It is further submitted that the trial Court has every right to give findings in respect of admissibility of those documents. Hence, he prayed for setting aside the order passed by the trial Court and allowing of the revision petition.

Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that at the time of filing the written statement, the tenant has not whispered anything about the documents and now he intended to mark those documents. It is further submitted that date has not been mentioned in document No.13. Document Nos.1 to 7 are only xerox copies and hence, the same are not admissible evidence. The learned counsel further submitted that the revision petitioner herein has filed C.R.P.(PD) No.1353 of 2010, in which, this Court passed an order on 22.11.2013 holding that since R.C.O.P. is of the year 1997, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the same on or before 28.02.2014. Since the revision petitioner filed an application, the R.C.O.P. is yet to be disposed of. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the revision petition.

Considered the rival submissions made on both sides and perused the typed set of papers.

The respondents/landlords filed an eviction petition in R.C.O.P.No.8 of 1997 on the ground of wilful default, owners occupation, demolition and reconstruction. The tenant/revision petitioner filed a written statement stating that he is not the tenant in the superstructure and the vacant site alone is belonging to the respondents and the tenant/revision petitioner alone put up superstructure. According to the revision petitioner, to prove the same, some of the related documents have to be marked. But the original of those documents are misplaced and hence, he filed only xerox copies of document Nos.1 to 7.

As per Section 63 of Indian Evidence Act, which deals with secondary evidence, once a person wants to let in secondary evidence, he has to follow some procedures. In para-4 of the affidavit, the revision petitioner has stated that original documents have been misplaced, for which, he has also given reasons. Since he is not in a position to produce the same as primary evidence, he has come forward with the application for reception of documents as secondary evidence.

Considering the aforestated circumstances, I am of the view, the revision petitioner is entitled for reception of the document Nos.1 to 7 subject to proof and relevancy. As far as document Nos. 13 and 14 are concerned, they are Bank statements and so they are public documents. Hence, I do not find any reasons to dismiss the application in respect of reception of document Nos.13 and 14. So the revision petitioner is also entitled for reception of the document Nos.13 and 14 subject to proof and relevancy. It is premature on the part of the trial Court to decide the document Nos.1 to 7, 13 and 14 are in admissible in evidence. Furthermore, the landlords can raise their objections at the time of marking those documents. At the time of pronouncing judgment, the trial Court has every right to decide the admissibility of the above said documents. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the trial Court is liable to be set aside and hence, it is hereby set aside.

In fine, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. Document Nos.1 to 7, 13 and 14 are received subject to proof and relevancy. As both the counsel sought for an earlier disposal of R.C.O.P.No.8 of 1997, I am inclined to give a direction to the trial Court to dispose of the same as early as possible. Accordingly, the trial Court is directed to dispose of R.C.O.P.No.8 of 1997 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Both the parties are directed to co-operate with the trial Court for early disposal. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.