LexASHOK SHARMA versus RAM ADHAR SHARMA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 2 S.C.R. 9 ASHOK SHARMA A v. RAM ADHAR SHARMA Ci-vii Appeal No. 883 Of 2009 FEBRUARY 11, 2009 B [TARUN CHATTERJEE AND V.5. SIRPURKAR, JJ.] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ; + Or.16, rr. 1 and 1 A - Suit for possession of flat located in Housing Society- On application of plaintiff, trial court allowed c summoning of PW3, President of the Society - PW3 sought permission to file document to prove date of completion of construction of the flat- Trial court declined permission - High - ; Court reversed the order and permitted the document to be taken on record at the instance of PW3 - Justification of - D Held: Justified - Plaintiff wa.s simply a member of the Haus- ing Society and could not be in possession of the concerned document - The document was in possession of the Society, whose President i.e. PW3 camf3 forward as a witness to give evidence and to produce the document -Document brought E by PW3 could be taken on record. Responctent filed suit for possession of flat located in a Cooperative Group Housing Society. Issues were framed by the trial Court and both the parties were directed F to file list of witnesses/documents. On application of the Respondent, the trial court allowed summoning of PW3, President of the Society. After the examination of PW3 was closed, he sought permission to file certain document to prove the date of completion of construction of the flat. G ..-'] The trial court declined permission on the ground that a witness could not be allowed to produce documents un- der Or, XVI r.1, CPC and since the document in question was not produced by the respondent either along· with 9 H 10 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R. A the plaint or at the time Qf framing of issues, at this stage it could not be taken on record. High Court reversed the order of the trial court and permitted document to be taken on record at the instance of PW-3. Hence the present ap- peal. B Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: The High Court was justified in permitting the document to be taken on record at the instance of PW-3. Or.XVI, rr. 1 and 1-A CPC, if read together, clearly indicate c that it is open to a party to summon a witness to the Court or even may, without applying for summons, bring a wit- ness to give evidence or tO produce documents. Such document brought by the witness can be taken on record and it is not necessary that the plaintiff must have filed on 0 record the copies of the said document earlier. In the present case, the question of filing a copy of the said docu- ment by the plaintiff could not arise in view of the fact that the document could not be In possession of the plaintiff- respondent. Respondent was simply a member of the Society, therefore, the record of completion of the con- E struction of the flat i.e. the suit premises could only be proved by the respondent by production of documents which was only in possession with the Society, whose President came forward to give evidence and to produce the documents. [Paras 10, 13] [ 13-D, E ; 14-G, H] F G Mange Ram v. Brij Mohan & Ors. AIR (1983) SC 925 and Vid/?ygdhar v. Manikrao & Anr. (1999) 3 SCC 573 - relied on. Case Law Reference AIR (1983) SC 925 (1999) 3 sec 573 relied on relied on Para 13 Para 14 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 883 H of 2009 + • -\ ~ ASH.OK SHARMA V RAM ADHAR SHARMA 11 From the Judgement and Order dated 11.01.2008 passed A by the High Court of Delhi, at New Delhi in Civil Miscellaneous (Main) 978 of 2006 Manish Sharma, C.L. Sahu for the Appellant. Rajesh Mahindru, Sa rad Kumar Singhania for the Respon· B dent. The Judgement of the Court was delivered by TARUN CHATTERJEE, J. ,.. 1. Leave granted. c 2. In the year 1995, the respondent Shri Ram Adhar Sharma let out his flat bearing No.11·C, Una Enclave, Mayur Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi-110091 (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit premises') to the appellant at a rental of Rs.3000/- per month, D inclusive of electricity bill and maintenance charges of the UNA Cooperative Society (in short 'the Society') . 3. Now a suit has been filed by the respondent in the Court of the District Judge, Delhi for a decree for possession and also for a decree of Rs.1,01,880/- with interest accrued thereon E and for other reliefs. 4. On or about 27th of November, 2004, iss~es were framed by the trial Court and both the parties were directed to file list of witnesses/documen
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.