Objections to the admissibility of documents can be raised at any stage, and the court has the liberty to decide the same at any stage, as per Order 13 Rule 3 CPC and the judgment in RVE Ventakachala Gounder.

JUDGMENT :

Nirmaljit Kaur, J.

1. The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 20.11.2017 passed by the Rent Controller, vide which, the application of the petitioner dated 20.11.2017 seeking the decision of the objection with respect to the admissibility of the documents was dismissed.

2. The respondent has filed eviction petition seeking possession of the petitioner from Shop No. 7 situated at Jahajpul, Mill Road, Hisar, on the ground that the respondent requires the demised premises for its own use and occupation. In the said eviction petition, it was pleaded that the rent of the demised premises is Rs. 2,125/- per month. The petitioner filed his written statement, wherein he, inter alia, pleaded that the respondent is only interested in increasing the rent and the present petition seeking eviction of the shop, which is in possession of the petitioner, is only to create pressure upon the petitioner herein to increase the rent.

3. The Rent Controller framed issues vide order dated 22.5.2017 and the case was fixed for 7.7.2017 for plaintiff's witnesses. Sh. Brij Bhushan alleged Manager of respondent stepped into the witness box as PW-1 and during the course of his examination on 2.11.2017, he tendered into evidence Ex.P1 to P-4. The case was deferred to 15.11.2017 for cross-examination of the said witness. On 15.11.2017, the petitioner filed an application for deciding his objection with regard to admissibility of documents Ex.P-1 to P-4 produced by PW-1 Brij Bhushan. In the application, it was stated that the said documents are not admissible as Brij Bhushan is neither the scribe nor these documents were executed before him. No order was passed on the application dated 15.11.2017. Since, there was no order passed on the application dated 15.11.2017, the petitioner filed yet another application dated 20.11.2017 requesting the Rent Controller to decide the objection before recording cross-examination of PW-1. In the said application, reliance was placed upon various judgments, vide which, it has been held that the objection is to be decided when the same is taken and should not be kept pending at the stage of final arguments. The said application was, however, disposed of with observations that the same shall be decided at the time of final hearing.

4. While praying for setting aside the order dated 20.11.2017, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the application of the petitioner was dismissed by the Rent Controller by passing the impugned order dated 20.11.2017 without issuing notice to the opposite party or calling for its reply. Secondly, the application has been dismissed while relying on the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court rendered in the case of Bipin Shantilal Panchal vs. State of Gujarat and Another, (2001) 3 SCC 1 without realizing that the said judgment pertains to a criminal case, where the procedure is governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thirdly, the issue in hand that decision on the objection has to be taken at the time when the same is raised and it cannot be postponed till the final decision, is no more res integra, being covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble the Apex Court rendered in the case of RVE Ventakachala Gounder vs. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami and V.P. Temple, (2003) 4 RCR (Civil) 704. It was, therefore, contended that the Rent Controller was obliged to pass the reasoned order on the first application dated 15.11.2017 and further the imposition of costs while dismissing the application dated 20.11.2017 was also arbitrary.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent while vehemently opposing the revision petition and supporting the impugned order submitted that as per Order 13 Rule 3 CPC, the Court was at liberty to reject a document which is inadmissible, at any stage, and it was not mandatory to decide the same before the endorsement or the said document was signed.

6. Learned counsel for the parties were heard at length.

7. The judgment rendered by t