Gopal vs Hira Chand and Others

Milap Chandra Jain, J.—This revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned Munsif, Bhilwara dated May 23, 1992 by which he refused to take on record the certified copies of the application moved by the defendant-petitioner u/s 19A, Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter to be called ''the Act''), power (vakalatnama) and order passed thereon.

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner that the learned trial court acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction in passing the impugned order. He further contended that the trial court did not consider that the documents were certified copies taken from the public record and they were relevant for the correct decision of the issue No. 3 relating to the arrears of rent outstanding against him.

In reply, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-non-petitioners that the defendant-petitioner has not averred in his written statement that he had deposited the rent u/s 19A of the Act or paid it to the plaintiffs in any manner. He further contended that his case is that he is not the tenant of the plaintiff-non-petitioners and these documents do not find mention in the list of reliance. He lastly contended that no explanation has been given for the inordinate delay in fifing these documents.

There is no substance in the revision petition. Admittedly, the defendant-petitioner has not averred in his written statement that he deposited rent u/s 19A of the Act or paid it to the plaintiffs in any other manner. His case is that he is not the tenant of the plaintiff-non-petitioners. It is also not in dispute that no list of reliance was filed by him mentioning these documents in it as required under Order VIII, Rule 2, C.P.C. The plaintiff and his witnesses were not confronted with these documents during their cross-examination, it cannot, therefore, be said that the defendant-petitioner relied upon these documents within the meaning of Order XIII, Rule 1, C.P.C.

The defendant-petitioner has utterly failed to explain the inordinate delay in filing the certified copies. Under Order XIII, Rule 2 C.P.C. only these documents can be taken oil record on which the party intend to rely upon them and has shown good cause for their non-production earlier.

There is yet another aspect of the matter. Jurisdiction of this Court is very limited u/s 115, C.P.C. Reference of The Managing Director (MIG) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. and Another, Balanagar Vs. Ajit Prasad Tarway, may be made here.

Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.