Objections to the admissibility of documents must be raised at trial; failure to do so waives the right to contest them on appeal.

ORDER :

SUBODH ABHYANKAR, J.

1] Heard finally, with the consent of the parties.

2] This review petition has been filed for review of the order passed by this Court in Second Appeal No.199 of 2008 dated 12.10.2023, whereby the appeal filed by the defendant has been allowed and the decree of eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent and also on the ground of denial of title of the suit property of the respondents/plaintiffs by the appellant/defendant has been set aside.

3] The present petition has been filed on the ground that this Court has held that Ex.P/1 to P/12 cannot be relied upon for certain reasons, which have been assigned in para 23 of the order under review.

4] Shri Ayushman Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the admissibility of the documents filed by the plaintiffs as Ex.P/1 to P/12 were never challenged by the defendant in the trial itself, and the substantial question of law was also not based upon the admissibility of the same. Thus, it is submitted that this Court has travelled beyond the substantial question of law framed by this Court and in such circumstances when the admissibility of the documents was not an issue and was not relevant to the substantial question of law, the order may be recalled and the appeal may be heard afresh.

5] In support of his submission, Shri Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the cases of Lachhmi Narain Singh (Dead) Through Legal Representatives and others Vs. Sarjug Singh (Dead) Through Legal Representatives and others reported as (2022) 13 SCC 746 paras 21 to 25; and Sonu alias Amar Vs. State of Haryana reported as (2017) 8 SCC 570 paras 29, 30 and 32.

6] The prayer is opposed by Shri A. K. Sethi, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent and it is submitted that no case for interference is made out as this Court has rightly held that the documents proved by the plaintiffs cannot be taken into consideration. Senior counsel has also submitted that even if the order is erroneous, Court cannot review the order invoking jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC. It is further submitted that the grounds raised in this review petition can also be raised by the petitioners in the appeal before the Supreme Court if they choose to file the same. In support of his submission, senior counsel has relied upon the decisions in the cases of Heeralal & others Vs. Shiv Kumar and another reported as 2010 (1) M.P.W.N. 78 ; and Satyanarayan and another Vs. Indarsingh & others reported as 2014 AIR CC 1469.

7] Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is found that so far as the substantial question of law framed in S.A. No.199 of 2008 is concerned, the same reads as under:-

“(1)whether the decree for eviction under Section 12(1) (c) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act merely on the basis of Exhibit P- 1 and P-2 involving no issue about the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties to the suit is sustainable in law.”

8] So far as the finding recorded by this Court regarding the documents exhibited by the plaintiff is concerned, the relevant paras 23 and 24 read as under:-

“23] In the considered opinion of this court, these documents Ex.P/1 to P/12 cannot be relied upon for two reasons. Firstly, they have been proved by the plaintiff through the defendants witness, thereby giving no opportunity to the defendant to cross examine the plaintiff regarding the veracity of these documents and secondly, these are only the certified copies, and there is no other evidence that original of these ever existed, and no employee of Municipal Council Jobat has been examined in this behalf by the plaintiff.

24] In the considered opinion of this court, in a case of eviction, where the defendant has also disputed the ownership of the plaintiff, it was fatal to the plaintiff to not to prove any document of his title or otherwise, in his examination-in-chief.