Smt. Meenakshi Devi vs Neeraj

Prakash Krishna, J.—The present revision has been filed u/s 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act 1887 against the judgment and order dated 7th August, 2006 whereby the court below has taken on record the documentary evidence filed by the plaintiff.

The background facts may be stated in brief:

The original S.C.C. Suit No. 2 of 2005 has been instituted by the plaintiff opposite party for recovery of arrears of rent, ejectment, damages and pendente lite present and future. The suit was instituted on 17th January, 2005. The written statement was filed on 3rd February, 2006. Thereafter, on 7th August, 2006, an application was filed by the plaintiff being application No. 35-C for permission to take certain documents on record. It has been informed that the documents filed through the said application are certified copies of plaint of earlier suit between the parties, written statement, certified copies of three certificates issued by Nagar Palika and certified copy of Amin report therein. Challenging the said order, the present revision has been filed.

Heard Shri Anupam Kulshrestha, learned Counsel for the applicant and Shri Surendra Tiwari, learned Counsel for the opposite party.

Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that in view of the provisions as contained in Order XIII Rule 1 of the C.P.C. and as interpreted by this Court in Hoti Lal and Ors. v. Additional District Judge, Khurja and Ors. 2005 (2) ARC 851, the trial court was not justified in taking the said documents on record as those documents should have been filed along with plaint.

In contra, learned Counsel for plaintiff-opposite party submits that the present revision is not maintainable as it is directed against an interlocutory order and no prejudice has been caused to the defendant applicant by the impugned order.

Considered the respective submissions and perused the record.

It is not in dispute that the recording of evidence had not commenced. It is also not in dispute that in a suit of small cause nature, issues are not required to be framed. Court is required to frame the points for determination only.Further there is no allegation that any prejudice has been caused to the defendant-applicant by taking the said evidence on record. The suit was at its infancy stage at that point of time. In this factual background, in view of the decision laid down by the Apex Court from time to time commencing from the judgment of Sangram Singh Vs. Election Tribunal, Kotah, Bhurey Lal Baya, it is not a fit case for interference. The procedure has been made to administer justice and not to dispense the justice. Learned Counsel for the opposite party has rightly invited the attention of this Court to the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu Vs. Union of India (UOI), where it has been held that the written statement filed belatedly may be accepted, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case.

Learned Counsel for the opposite party has placed reliance on Kailash Vs. Nanhku and Others, in particular. It has been laid down that ordinarily, the time schedule prescribed by Order VIII Rule 1 has to be honoured. The extension of time sought for by the defendants from the court whether within 30 days or 90 days, as the case may be, should not be allowed in the routine manner. The extension can be granted only by way of an exception and for reasons assigned by the defendant and also recorded in writing by the court to its satisfaction. However, it has been provided therein that still a discretion vests in the Court to extend the time when the Court is satisfied that it is not a case of laxity or gross negligence on the part of the defendant or his counsel.

In view of the above discussions, I do not find any merit in the revision.

The present revision is dismissed.

The trial court shall dispose of S.C.C. Suit No. 2 of 2005 Neeraj v. Meenakshi, expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of filing of certified copy of this order. I have been informed that the evidence has already been led by the parties, hearing and judgment is awaited.

No order as to costs.