Mr. N K Venkatesh Babu Chetty vs Mr. K.N. Subramanyam

Ram Mohan Reddy, J.—The Defendant in O.S No. 504/2008 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn), Mulabagal, aggrieved by the order dated 9.2.2010 rejecting I.A. No. 5 u/s 151 CPC to impound the alleged lease deed dated 22.12.2006 as being insufficiently stamped and unregistered and allowing the Plaintiffs I.A. No. 6 under Order 7 Rule 14(A) permitting the Plaintiff to file the documents annexed to the list and to condone the delay, has presented this petition.

The suit instituted by the Respondent for permanent injunction in respect of a certain immovable property on the premise that he was a lessee of agricultural lands under an unregistered lease deed dated 22.12.2006 executed by the Petitioner/

Defendant, was resisted by filing written statement contending interalia that the suit was not maintainable since no lease of agricultural land was permitted in law while the agreement was concocted and fabricated. On 22.12.2009, the Plaintiff filed the affidavit in lieu of recording examination-in-chief, whence the Defendant/Petitioner filed I.A. No. 5 u/s 151 CPC to reject the marking of the lease deed dated 22.12.2006 sought to be introduced in evidence as it is void abnitio. In the affidavit accompanying the application, it was alleged that the document was false, fabricated and meant to extract monies from the Defendant as he was a resident of Bangalore and in addition the document was compulsorily registerable u/s 17 of the Indian Registration Act, subject to payment of duty and penalty under Sections 33 and 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act. On that date, the order-sheet disclosed that objections were not filed and therefore, the Court adjourned the case for hearing on I.A. No. 5 on 9.2.2010, On 9.2.2010, in the absence of the counsel for the Petitioner, the objections were filed to I.A. No. 5 interalia contending that the Defendant did execute the lease deed and that the Plaintiff was ready and willing to pay the duty and penalty as may be directed by the Court. The Trial Court accordingly adjourned the case to 19.01.2010 for filing objections to I.A. No. 5. That I.A. No. 5 was rejected. The Plaintiff/Respondent filed I.A. No. 6 under Order 7 Rule 14-A of the CPC to permit the Plaintiff to produce documents as per list. That application was allowed on the very same day and PW-1 further examined whence the lease deed was marked as Exhibit P-1 subject to proof, and cross-examination of PW-1 was taken as nil and adjourned for further evidence.

Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and examined the order dated 9.2.2010, in my considered opinion, the procedure followed by the Trial Court is perverse. The compulsion to say this is because, any application to be filed by a party before the Trial Court, necessarily requires a copy to be served on the party or his representative, before the application is posted for orders as required by Rule 19 of the Karnataka Civil Rules of Practice. Admittedly, I.A. No. 6 filed by the Plaintiff on 9.2.2010 was without following the procedure under Rule 19 of serving a copy on the learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Defendant well in advance extending an opportunity to file objections and therefore, the order allowing I.A. No. 6, on the very same day, is illegal.

Yet again, Petitioner''s I.A. No. 5 filed on 22.12.2009 was adjourned to 19.01.2010 for filing objections of the Plaintiff on which date the Court recorded that objections were not filed and the proceeding adjourned to 9.2.2010 for hearing on I.A. No. 5. Very strangely, the Trial Court, without an application to recall the order dated 19.01.2010, accepted the objections to I.A. No. 5 and in the absence of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner - Defendant, by a cryptic order, rejected I.A. No. 5. The procedure followed is perverse and does not disclose a judicious mind. Therefore, the order rejecting I.A. No. 5 is unsustainable.

Admittedly, the suit was adjourned to 9.2.2010 was for hearing on I.A. No. 5 and not for recording further evidence of PW-1. Very strangely, the Trial Court recorded the further evidence of PW-1, marked the unregistered and insufficiently stamped lease deed as Exhibit P-1, subject to proof, although the Plaintiff was ready and willing to pay the duty and penalty as set out in I.A. No. 6. The procedure adopted by the Trial Court in recording the further evidence of PW-1 and marking Ex.P1 subject to proof, cannot but be characterised as perverse calling for interference. Sequentially, the order dated 9.2.2010 recording cross-examination of PW-1 as ''nil'' is unsustainable.

In the result, the petition is allowed, the order dated 9.2.2010 is quashed and the proceeding is remitted to the Trial Court with a direction to continue the proceeding in the suit from the stage of hearing on I.A. No. 5 and thereafter to permit the Petitioner -Defendant to file objections to I.A. No. 6, extend a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties and pass orders by assigning reasons, findings and conclusions.