A court may dismiss an application to summon an official record keeper to produce a document if the application is suspicious or lacks merit.

CM(M) 1998/2023

Page 1 of 6

$~76

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

CM(M) 1998/2023

KAMAL NARAIN KAPOOR

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Harkirat Shawney, Mr. Sanjeev

Kumar, and Mr. Aditya and Mr. Punit

Vinay, Advocates

versus

SH UMA SHANKAR KAPOOR & ORS.

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. Sumit Chander, Mr. Nitesh

Kumar Singh and Mr. Devender

Singh, Advs for R-1 to 4.

Mr. Naresh Kapoor, R-5 (through

VC)

%

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

J U D G M E N T

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J (ORAL):

CM APPL. 62853/2023 (for exemption)

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

Accordingly, the present application stands disposed of.

CM APPL. 62852/2023

1.

This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India

impugns the order dated 16.10.2023 passed by the A.D.J. (Central), Tis

Hazari Court, Delhi (‘Trial Court’) in CS No. 20463/2016, titled as Uma

Shankar Kapoor v. Kamal Narain Kapoor, dismissing an application

filed by the Petitioner under Order XVI Rule 6 read with Section 151 of the

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) and Section 165 of the Indian

Digitally Signed

By:Hemant Pratap Singh

Signing Date:16.12.2023

19:36:54

Signature Not Verified

CM(M) 1998/2023

Page 2 of 6

Evidence Act to summon the official record keeper or trustee of the landlord

Trust i.e., defendant no.3 with the original rent agreement dated 08.08.1973

before the Trial Court.

2.

The Petitioner is defendant no.1. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are the

plaintiffs. Respondent No.5 is defendant no.2. Respondent No.6 is defendant

no.3.

2.1

The civil suit has been filed for possession on the assertion that the

plaintiffs along with defendant nos. 1 and 2 are co-tenants in the suit

property.

Defendant no.3 is the trust, which has admittedly let out the suit

property to ‘Daya Shankar and Sons’. Late Mr. Daya Shankar Kapoor was

the father of the plaintiffs and defendant nos. 1 and 2. The tenancy in the suit

property is governed by Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.

2.2

The dispute between the parties is whether ‘Daya Shankar and Sons’

is an HUF of Mr. Daya Shankar Kapoor as its Karta; or a partnership firm in

which Mr. Daya Shankar Kapoor was a partner.

3.

The learned counsel for the Petitioner i.e., defendant no.1 states that

the rent agreement dated 08.08.1973 is a material document and the date of

08.08.1973 finds due mention in the written statement.

3.1

He states that the date of 08.08.1973 is also mentioned in the affidavit

of late Sh. Shiv Kumar Jatia who was proposed as a witness on behalf of the

landlord Trust i.e., original defendant no. 3. He states however, Mr. Shiv

Kumar Jatia could not step into the witness box and tender his evidence

affidavit as he was initially unwell and then passed away.

3.2

He states that the Trial Court has however, failed to consider this

application on account of the orders passed by the High Court on 26.09.2023

Digitally Signed

By:Hemant Pratap Singh

Signing Date:16.12.2023

19:36:54

Signature Not Verified

CM(M) 1998/2023

Page 3 of 6

and 09.10.2023 in CM(M) 1375/2019.

3.3

He states that the Petitioner can neither confirm nor deny before this

Court whether the original of the rent agreement dated 08.08.1973 is

available in the custody of the Trust i.e., defendant no.3, however, there is a

presumption since they are the landlord; they would have the original of this

agreement.

4.

In reply, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 i.e., the

plaintiffs oppose the present petition and states that the alleged rent

agreement dated 08.08.1973 was not placed on record before the Trial Court

with the written statement.

4.1

He states that the photocopy of the alleged rent agreement has been

placed on record before the High Court in CM(M) 1375/2019 for the first

time on 21.11.2023.

4.2

He states that the evidence of the Petitioner i.e., defendant no. 1 stood

concluded on 14.05.2018 and thereafter, the matter has remain