The genuineness or admissibility of the document sought to be placed on record under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC cannot be examined at the time of consideration of the application.

JUDGMENT :

MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL, J.

1. Although, the matter comes up on an application (1/2023) filed by the petitioner seeking extension of the interim order dated 12.10.2017; but on the request of the learned counsels for the respective parties, this writ petition is heard on its merit at this stage.

2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 15.09.2017 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Alwar in Eviction Petition No. 11/2009 whereby, an application filed by the petitioner/applicant under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC has been dismissed.

3. The relevant facts in brief are that the petitioner filed an application against the respondent/non-applicant under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for brevity “the Act of 2001”) seeking his eviction from the suit shop stating the same to have fallen in his share in the family settlement dated 15.01.1976. Before evidence of the parties could begin, the petitioner filed an application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC seeking leave of the Tribunal to place original family settlement dated 15.01.1976 on record, which has been dismissed by the learned Tribunal vide its order dated 15.01.1976, impugned herein.

4. Assailing the order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Tribunal erred in rejecting his application on the premise that genuineness of the family settlement was under cloud and also for the reason that it was unregistered. He submits that at the time of consideration of his application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC, the learned Tribunal could not have examined the genuineness or admissibility of the document. He, therefore, prayed that this writ petition be allowed, the order dated 15.09.2017 be quashed and set aside and the application filed by him under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC be allowed.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the learned Tribunal did not err in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner inasmuch as genuineness of the family settlement itself was doubtful. He submits that the document being unregistered, the learned Tribunal has rightly dismissed the application. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

6. Heard. Considered.

7. In the eviction application filed by the petitioner, he has claimed that the suit shop fell in his share under the family settlement dated 15.01.1976. A photocopy of the agreement was submitted along with the memo of application. Stating that original of the family settlement was lying in some other case file and as soon as, it was traced, it was being submitted without delay, the application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC came to be filed. A perusal of the order impugned dated 15.09.2017 reveals that the application has been dismissed by the learned Tribunal on account of the document being unregistered and the transaction under it being doubtful. It is trite law that the genuineness or admissibility of the document sought to be placed on record along with the application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC cannot be examined by the learned trial Court at the time of consideration of the application. The application was filed by the petitioner before evidence of the parties began. The photo copy of the document was already on record.

8. In view thereof, in the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Tribunal erred in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner.

9. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The order dated 15.09.2017 is quashed and set aside to the extent of dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC which stands allowed.

10. The application (1/2023) stands disposed of accordingly.