1981 Supreme(MP) 388

G. L. Oza, J.
Nathilal v. Ramkali Devi.
C. Revn. No. 568 of 1981 (G); Decided on 16-7-1981.

Headnote:(1) Civil P. C., 1908 -- O. 13, R. 10 - summoning of record of other Court --question of admissibility not to be seen -- such question may be raised when documents are accepted in evidence -- Nagariya Sthawor Sampatli Kar Adhiniyam, 1964 (M. P.) -- S. 25.

        (2) Nogariya Sthawar Sampalti Kar Adhiniyam, 1964 (M. P.) -- S. 25 provision under -- when may be considered -- surmounting the record -- no bar -- bar should be considered when documents are accepted in evidence of another case -- Civil P. C., 1908 -- O.13, R. 10.

        (3) Civil P. C., 1908 -- O. 47, R. 1-- review of earlier order without application or submission--not justified.

        The non-applicant plaintiff bas filed suit against the petitioner-defendant for eviction and arrears of rent, The quantum of monthly rent was disputed by the petitioner-defendant and the Court below, therefore, directed an enquiry about the quantum of monthly rent. The petitioner defendant submitted an application to the trial Court alleging that according to nonapp1icant land-lords own statement before the Property Tax Officer. the agreed rent was Rs. 20 per month and he, therefore, submitted an application for summoning the record from the Property Tax Officer for purposes of enquiry. The Court, by its order dated 4-11-80, allowed the application and directed that the file of the Property Tax Officer in connection with the property in dispute, be summoned.

        Later, by the impugned order dated 4-4-81, the learned trial Court considering section 25 of the Property Tax Act felt that first the question as to whether in view of section 25, the record of the Property Tax Officer could or could Dot be admitted in evidence should be decided and then only the record be sent for. It is against this order that the present revision petition is filed.

        Held: Apparently, the trial Court having once passed an order to summon the record of the Property Tax Officer, there was no occasion for consideration of the order. The learned counsel for the non-applicant plaintiff frankly stated that it was not at his instance that the order has been re-considered. But his contention was that the Court has not yet cancelled the summoning of the file but it is kept for consideration. In any event there appears to be no reason why the learned trial Court chose to review his own earlier order without and application or any submission may by either of the parties.

        It is clear that the question section 25, at best, could be raised at a time when any paper or a document from that file is being accepted in evidence. At present the only order is to summon the record and there appears to be no justification for consideration of section. The Court below committed material irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction in re-opening the order which has been passed earlier, on a ground which does not arise. Revision allowed.