Smt. Vidyawati Devi v. Surendra Singh) whereby he has rejected the application
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:120976 Court No. - 6 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 7508 of 2024 Petitioner :- Surendra Singh Respondent :- Smt Vidyawati Devi Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashutosh Diljun,Sharad Malviya Counsel for Respondent :- Ajay Kumar Singh,Ashish Kumar Singh Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The petitioner by means of the present writ petition has assailed the order dated 08.04.2024 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (Senior Division), Basti in P.A. Case No.1
Legal Reasoning
of 2019 (Smt. Vidyawati Devi Vs. Surendra Singh) whereby he has rejected the application 51Ga2 of the petitioner for cross- examining the respondent and other witnesses of respondent on the ground that the affidavit filed by the respondent and other witnesses of the respondent contains incorrect and false facts and the witnesses are tutored witnesses. 3. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the learned Civil Judge has failed to appreciate the law correctly inasmuch as once an affidavit has been filed by the respondent and her witnesses, the petitioner has right to cross examine them, therefore, the learned Civil Judge has erred in law in holding that the petitioner does not have absolute right to cross examine the witness unless he makes out a case for cross examination of the witnesses. It is contended that the impugned order is based upon misinterpretation of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, and therefore, the impugned cannot be sustained. 4. It is lastly urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that the application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 34 (1) (a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred as the 'U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972'), therefore, the petitioner has right to cross examine any witness. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 is a complete Code and Section 34(1) (b) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 provides the filing of evidence by affidavit. It is contended that if the petitioner wants to cross examine the witnesses of the respondent, he has to make out an exceptional case to establish that cross examination of the witnesses of the respondent is necessary for the right and correct adjudication of the case. It is contended that the application of the petitioner is vague and perusal of the same does not disclose the purpose for cross examination, therefore, the learned Civil Judge has not committed any illegality in rejecting the same. 6. Be that as it may, the application of the petitioner 51Ga2 dated 28.02.2024 reads as under:- "उपररोक्त ववाद मम ननिववेदनि हहै नकि आववेनदकिवा निवे अपनिवा सवाक्ष्य तथवा अपनिवे किथनिनों किवे समथरनि मम सवाकक्षीगण किवा सवाक्ष्य सशपथ बततौर ममुख्यपपृच्छवा मवानिनिक्षीय न्यवायवालय मम प्रस्तमुत नकियवा हहै , जजिसमम आववेनदकिवा और उसकिवे सवाकक्षीगण निवे झझूठवे तथ्यनों तथवा अस्पष्ट पतवे किवे आधवार पर व्यवसवाय किरो नछपवाकिर अपनिवा तथवा अपनिवे सवाकक्षीगण किवे बयवानि टझूटरर रूप मम मवानिनिक्षीय न्यवायवालय मम प्रस्तमुत नकियवा हहै। ववास्तनवकितवा यह हहै नकि आववेनदकिवा दवारवा शक्षीमतक्षी शवान्तक्षी दवेवक्षी सवे जिब नवववानदत मकिवानि क्रय नकियवा गयवा थवा उसकिवे बहहत वरर पहलवे सवे नवपकक्षी उपररोक्त मकिवानि मम बततौर नकिरवाएदवार सपत्निक्षीकि आबवाद हहै और न्यवायवालय किवे आदवेश पर उक्त मकिवानि किवा नकिरवायवा न्यवायवालय मम हक्षी जिमवा किरतवा चलवा आ रहवा हहै। नवपकक्षी किभक्षी भक्षी नरफवाल्टर निहहीं रहवा हहै। वतरमवानि समय मम नवपकक्षी उक्त मकिवानि मम बततौर नकिरवाएदवार अपनिक्षी पत्निक्षी किवे सवाथ ननिववास किरतवे हहए वकिवालत किवा व्यवसवाय किर रहवा हहै इस तथ्य किरो आववेनदकिवा तथवा उसकिवे सवाकक्षीगण भलक्षी-भभॉनत जिवानितवे हहै नफर भक्षी आववेनदकिवा निवे नवपकक्षी किरो वभॉनछत निरोनटस किभक्षी निहहीं नदयवा और नि हक्षी निरोनटस किवे बवावत किरोई उलवेख नकियवा हहै। आववेनदकिवा निवे पझूणरतयवा झझूठवे अनभकिथनिनों किवे आधवार पर प्रवाथरनिवा पत्र अन्तगरत धवारवा 21 यझू०पक्षी० एक्ट ससंख्यवा 13 सनि 1972 प्रस्तमुत नकियवा हहै और उन्हहीं झझूठवे तथ्यनों किवे आधवार पर अपनिवे सवाकक्षीगण किरो टझूटरर किर रखवा हहै। आववेनदकिवा किवे सवाकक्षीगण उसकिवे मवेलक्षी मददगवार तथवा उसकिवे सवाथ किवाम किरनिवे ववालवे व्यनक्त हहै। ऐसक्षी दशवा मम आववेनदकिवा तथवा उसकिवे सवाकक्षीगण किरो मवानिनिक्षीय न्यवायवालय मम तलब किरकिवे उनिसवे प्रनतपपृच्छवा नकिए जिवानिवे हवेतमु नवपकक्षीगण किरो अनिमुमनत मवानिनिक्षीय न्यवायवालय दवारवा प्रदवानि नकियवा जिवानिवा आवश्यकि एवसं न्यवायससंगत हहै। अततः प्रवाथरनिवा हहै नकि आववेनदकिवा शक्षीमतक्षी नवदवावतक्षी दवेवक्षी तथवा उसकिवे सवाकक्षीगण नवश्वनिवाथ गमुपवा , अजखलवेख किमुमवार एवसं रमवा शसंकिर गतौड़ किरो मवानिनिक्षीय न्यवायवालय मम तलब किरकिवे उनिसवे प्रनतपपृच्छवा नकिए जिवानिवे हवेतमु नवपकक्षीगण किरो अनिमुमनत प्रदवानि किरनिवे किकी किपृपवा किरम।" 7. Perusal of the said application discloses that the averments contained in the application are vague and does not disclose any reason as to for what purpose the cross examination of the respondent and her witnesses are necessary. Further, there is no pleading in the application that which averments in the affidavit of the respondent and her witnesses are false and cannot be replied or rebutted in evidence by filing affidavit, therefore, the cross examination to find out the veracity of such statement in the affidavit of the respondent and her other witnesses is necessary and essential for the proper adjudication of the case. 8. Since, the application is completely vague and is bereft of necessary pleadings, therefore, this Court does not find any good ground to interfere with the order passed by the Civil Judge, Basti. 9. So far as the last submission of learned counsel for the petitioner based upon Section 34 (1) (a) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 is concerned, this Court also does not find any merit in the aforesaid submission, inasmuch as the power under Section 34(1) (a) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 has to be exercised judicially and not capriciously. As already noted above, the petitioner has not stated as to which averment in the affidavit of the respondent and her witnesses are false, which cannot be rebutted by the petitioner by filing affidavit. In such view of the fact, the said contention is also misconceived and rejected. 10. The writ petition lacks merit, and is accordingly dismissed
Decision
with no order as to costs. Order Date :- 29.7.2024 NS