The court emphasized that the refusal of evidence based on an irrelevant ground constitutes a principle foreign to the law and requires correction and interference.

JUDGMENT

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails order dated 25th February 2020, passed by the learned Additional District Judge (the learned ADJ) in CS 10451/16, to the extent the said order disallows the request of learned Counsel for the petitioner (as the plaintiff in the said suit) for permission to confront the respondent's witness DW-1 S.K. Goyal with certain photographs and the negatives there of.

2. CS 10451/16 was instituted by Hardev Dohil and his son Dr. Ranjan Dohil against the respondent bank ('the Bank'), before this Court, prior to enhancement of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Courts, as CS(OS) 1337/2007. Subsequently, following enhancement of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Trial Courts, the suit was transferred to the learned ADJ and stands re-numbered as CS 10451/16.

3. During the pendency of the suit, Hardev Dohil, who was the first plaintiff in the suit, has expired. He is represented, in the present proceedings, by his legal representatives Ms. Upasana Dohil and Ms. Angela Dohil (as Petitioner 1(i) and 1(ii) respectively).

4. The petitioners, who claim to be owners of a property admeasuring 650 sq. ft. situated on the ground floor of Dohil Chambers, 46, Nehru Place, New Delhi, claimed that the Bank was a tenant in respect of the said premises. The plaint asserted that the tenancy stood terminated vide legal notice dated 7th November 2006 issued under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The suit was initially instituted for recovering possession of the suit property and for mesne profits. However, during the pendency of the suit, consequent on the allowing of an application filed by the petitioner under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, possession of the suit property was recovered by the petitioner. The only issue that remains for adjudication was, therefore, the claim for mesne profits. Accordingly, the petitioner amended his suit to restrict the decree sought in the suit for a sum of ? 63,95,641/- on account of arrears of rent, damages, mesne profits and repairing charges.

5. The suit is at the stage of evidence. The petitioners, as plaintiffs, led the evidence of three witnesses. Their evidence stands closed.

6. The present dispute relates to the evidence of DW-1 S.K. Goyal, who, according to Mr. Manchanda, learned Counsel for the petitioners, was Chief Manager of the Bank at the time when the lease deed dated 14th July 1999 was executed.

7. Mr. Manchanda submits that one of the contentions advanced by the Bank, in response to the suit, was that there was a public passage which, as it was in use by members of the public, could not be included while computing the damages or mesne profits payable to the petitioner. He submits that, per contra, the contention of his client is that the pubic passage was being actually used by the respondent bank and that the respondent bank had, in fact, constructed a guard room and a store room in the passage. On this aspect, the relevant portion of the cross examination of DW-1, which took place on 25th February 2020 may be reproduced thus:

'Question 2 : Whether there was a guard room of the bank in the covered verandah at point AC to EF.

Answer : There was no guard room at the time of my joining in the said branch and during my tenure.

Question 3 : Do you know at what time the guard room was there and the same was removed ?

Answer: I have already replied in question No.2.

It is incorrect to suggest that I am deliberately concealing the existence of guard room on the ground floor at point AC to EF and the same was removed by DDA as the bank had illegally and unauthorized constructed the same. It is incorrect to suggest that the remaining covered verandah excluding the guard room was being used as parking for the official of bank and its customer exclusively or that bank also put flowers pots in the said portion. (Vol. The Parking was not allowed in that area).

It is correct that the verandah at the first floor was also having ce