The court emphasized the importance of allowing an element of surprise in cross-examination and clarified the party's entitlement to prove documents in their own evidence if denied by the witness.

PRATIBHA RANI, J.

CM(M) 630/2015

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 29th June, 2015 whereby the application of the petitioner moved under Order 8 Rule 1A read with Section 151 CPC has been dismissed by the learned ARC, the petitioner preferred the present petition.

2. Vide impugned order, the learned ARC declined the permission to the petitioner to place on record certified copies of the documents in respect of the other properties owned by respondent/landlord, to demonstrate that the eviction petition filed by the respondent/landlord seeking eviction of the petitioner/tenant from the suit premises was not to meet his bonafide requirement.

3. The learned Trial Court after quoting the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1A CPC dismissed the said application observing as under:-

‘The present case is at the stage of cross-examination of the petitioner and this Court of the opinion of that the respondent is having very much opportunity available to him to produce any document during the cross-examination of petitioner’s witnesses. Therefore no purpose would be served by allowing the application as no justified reason has been assigned by the respondent regarding filing of documents at this stage of proceedings therefore, no ground is made out for allowing the application, hence, the application is dismissed.’

4. The grievance of the petitioner/tenant is that if the documents are not taken on record, and the respondent/landlord on being confronted with these documents during his cross examination, denies the same then the petitioner/tenant would be remedy less.

5. The apprehension expressed by the petitioner/tenant while impugning the order dated 29th June, 2015 is contrary to the legal position in this regard.

6. In an eviction petition seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground of bonafide requirement, the tenant has a right to contest the eviction petition taking a plea that the landlord has alternative accommodations. The petitioner in this case was granted leave to defend by order of this Court dated 10th October, 2012 in RC.Rev. No.277/2011.

7. The petitioner filed the written statement detailing the properties which to his knowledge, were owned by the respondent/landlord. Rejoinder was filed by the respondent/landlord in respect of the properties detailed in tabulated form in para No.10 of the written statement, not disputing the ownership of properties mentioned in para 10 of the written statement.

8. The petitioner’s case is that even after filing of written statement, he could manage to have details of many other properties also owned by the respondent/landlord. Thus, the documents he wanted to place on record was to show that the eviction petition was filed concealing the vital information about the properties owned by him which was very much in the knowledge of the respondent/landlord.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant has submitted that in view of the concealment of information about the properties owned by the respondent/landlord in his eviction petition as well as while filing rejoinder, the possibility is that he may deny the certified copies of the title documents. Respondent may raise objections if the petitioner intends to prove such documents at the stage of defence evidence. Learned counsel for the respondent/landlord has submitted that though the documents now sought to be placed on record by the petitioner/tenant were not filed at the appropriate stage and the certified copies were obtained by him in January, 2015, the same were not filed immediately thereafter. He does not dispute the legal position that such documents can be confronted to a witness irrespective of the fact that such documents were not filed at the appropriate stage.

10. The question as to whether the documents not filed earlier if confronted to the witness during his cross examination and denied by him, can be proved at the stage of his own evidence, came up for consideration before this Court in the decision reported as Subhash Chander vs.