The court upheld the rejection of a writ petition challenging the dismissal of an application for additional evidence, emphasizing that such evidence cannot be introduced to fill gaps in a case.

ORDER :

(Nupur Bhati, J.)

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners assailing the validity of the orders passed by Additional District Judge, Rajsamand ('Trial Court'), whereby the learned Trial Court has rejected the application(s) preferred by the petitioners under Order 41, Rule 27 (1) and Order 11, Rule 12 read with section 151 CPC.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent Temple Board, Nathdwara preferred an application seeking eviction of the petitioner No.1/tenant from the suit shop No.6 in question situation in an inn ¼/keZ'kkyk½ under the provisions of Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1964 ('Act of 1964'). In the application, it was inter-alia alleged that the inn ¼/keZ'kkyk½ was in the ownership of the Temple Board and non-applicant No.1/petitioner No.1 was the tenant and the non-application No.2/petitioner No.2, Seth Jamnadas Lallubhai Charitable Trust, Mumbai ('Trust') was authorized agent to collect the rent. When the tenant failed to pay the rent, a notice dated 27.03.2008 was issued by the Temple Board terminating the tenancy. A prayer was thus made that the Temple Board is entitled to get vacant possession and due rent alongwith mesne profit.

3. After service of the summons, a reply to application seeking eviction was filed by applicant No.1/petitioner No.1 while denying ownership of the Temple Board as also landlord-tenant relationship and in fact the owner of the inn ¼/keZ'kkyk½ including the shop in question was the applicant No.2- Trust. It was thus averred in the reply that the applicant- Temple Board has no right to terminate the tenancy. Reply was also filed by applicant No.2- Trust questioning the maintainability of the application under the Act of 1964, inasmuch as it was the public premises. It was further alleged that the suit property was purchased by the Trust the inn was constructed by the Trust.

4. Both the parties led their respective oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their case.

5. After hearing the parties, the Estate Officer vide its order dated 20.04.2019 (Annex.1) proceeded to allow the application filed by the respondent- Trust and directed eviction of the petitioners from the suit shop in question. The petitioners were also directed to pay due rent and mesne profit.

6. Being aggrieved by order dated 20.04.2019 (Annex.1), the petitioners preferred appeal before the District Judge, Rajsamand, which is pending adjudication before the appellate court.

7. During pendency of the appeal before the District Judge, Rajsamand, the petitioners preferred an application under Order 41, Rule 27 read with Order 11, Rule 12 CPC on 03.10.2019 seeking to place on record copy of Bapi Patta dated 02.02.1925 (Samvat Year 1981) alongwith map, which were in the power and possession of the Temple Board, which were prayed to be summoned from the Temple Board.

8. A reply to the said application was filed by the respondent Temple Board while pleading that the documents sought to be summoned were not at all relevant for the purpose of deciding the appeal and a prayer for dismissing the said application was made.

9. The learned Trial Court after hearing the arguments of the parties vide order impugned dated 12.01.2024 (Annex.6) proceeded to reject the application and being appalled from the same, the present writ petition have been preferred with a prayer to quash and set aside the order and allowing the application preferred by the petitioners under Order 41, Rule 27 (1) and Order 11, Rule 12 read with section 151 CPC.

10. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the learned Trial Court has failed to consider the relevancy of the documents sought to be summoned at the appellate stage, inasmuch as the petitioners have explained the relevancy of the documents sought to be summoned as the documents go to the root of the case, however, the learned Trial Court has cursorily rejected the applicatio