High Court
Case Details
CRP 375/2012 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Both the revision petitions being arisen out of the common order dated 2 3.07.2012 passed by the learned Munsiff No.1, Dibrugarh in Title Suit No.3/2011, are taken up for hearing and disposal together.
Legal Reasoning
The plaintiff, in Title Suit No.3/2011, has filed CRP No.375/2012 challe nging the aforesaid order in so far as it relates to the rejection of the prayer to allow him to file a sale deed. CRP No.477/2012 has been filed by the defenda nt in the said suit against the said order in so far as it relates to the order allowing the amendment of the pleadings in the plaint in relation to the correct ion of age of the plaintiff.
Legal Reasoning
I have heard Mr. S.C. Keyal and Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. It has been contended by Mr. Keyal, the learned counsel that since the p etitioner has filed an application for allowing him to file the sale deed by whi ch the petitioner transferred certain immovable property in favour of the presen t defendant in the capacity of the karta, to prove that the defendant has accept ed the petitioner as karta, the said prayer ought to have been accepted by the C ourt below, when the defendant has disputed in the written statement filed about the assertion of the petitioner that he is the karta of the Hindu Undivided Fam ily(HUF), on the basis of which he has instituted the suit for eviction. Support ing the order dated 23.07.2012 in relation to the correction of age in the plead ing of the plaint it has been submitted that in terms of the order passed by the High Court on 18.05.2012 in CRP No.163/2011, the prayer for amendment of the pl eadings in the plaint in respect of the age of the plaintiff has been made, whic h having been allowed, may not be interfered with in the revision petition filed by the defendant, as the said amendment was necessary for deciding the dispute between the parties effectively and completely and it has also not caused any pr ejudice to the defendant. On the contrary, Mr. Dutta, the learned counsel submits that reading of the order dated 23.07.2012 passed in the aforesaid suit reveals that as if the C ourt below has accepted the age of the petitioner as 52 years, though there is a dispute relating to the age of the petitioner. It has also been submitted that as the petitioner has failed to demonstrate the reason for non-production of the sale deed at the earlier stage of the suit, the Court below has rightly rejecte d the prayer of the petitioner to accept the same. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for th e appearing parties and also perused the pleadings in the revision petitions inc luding the annexures appended thereto. It appears that the present respondent earlier approached this Court in CRP No.163/2011 rejecting the prayer made by him under Order 11 Rule 12 read wit h Section 151 CPC. In the said proceeding the parties have exchanged their affid avits. A Single Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.05.2012, noticing the su bmission advanced on behalf of the respondent therein (who is the petitioner in CRP No.375/2012) that the appropriate application shall be filed before the Tria l Court for correction of the mistake relating to the age mentioned in the plead ings in the plaint, has recorded the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the defendant/tenant that he does not have any objection to such course of action as suggested. In the said order the Court has also observed that the plea dings relating to the execution of the sale deed in the affidavit-in-reply filed by the landlord has not been disputed. The landlord, thereafter, filed applications, one for amendment of the p leadings in the plaint in relation to the correction of the age of the petitione r and the other for acceptance of the sale deed. It appears from the order dated 23.07.2012 that what the Court below has allowed is amendment of the pleadings of the plaint relating to his age, which was earlier recorded as 59 years. The C ourt below naturally cannot record at that stage of the proceeding a finding abo ut the age and what was done is only the amendment of the pleadings in relation to the age, which in case of any dispute, has to be proved by the party concerne d. In relation to the prayer of the landlord to accept the sale deed, the C ourt below, however, by the said impugned order has refused to accept the same s olely on the ground that no cause for non-production of the sale deed earlier ha s been shown. Admittedly the suit has been filed by the landlord against the tenant fo r his eviction under the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1 972. The defendant/tenant in the written statement filed has pleaded that the pl aintiff/landlord in the said suit is not the karta. In order to substantiate tha t the plaintiff is the karta of the HUF, wanted to introduce the sale deed by wh ich according to the plaintiff he being the karta has sold immovable property in favour of the defendant by a registered instrument. One of the issues in the su it being whether the plaintiff in the said suit is the karta of the HUF, the Cou rt below ought to have allowed the plaintiff to introduce the said sale deed so as to decide the controversy between the parties in relation to the said dispute , effectively and completely. That being the position, the impugned order dated 23.07.2012 passed by t he learned Munsiff No.1, Dibrugarh, in Title Suit No.3/2011 in so far as it rela tes to the rejection of the prayer to allow the petitioner to introduce the sale deed is set aside. The learned Munsiff is directed to accept the sale deed, whi ch naturally has to be proved by the plaintiff in the subsequent stage of the pr oceeding. CRP No.477/2012 is disposed of with the observation as above. Th e parties are directed to appear before the Court below on 19.08.2013.
Decision
The revision petitions are accordingly disposed of.