High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Ram Sanehi Lal v. Spl.Judge(D.A.A.)Banda & Others - WRIT - A No. 12512 of 2001  RD-AH 18283 (29 October 2006)
Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J
Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
The case of the petitioner is that S.C.C. Suit no. 10 of 1993 was filed by Sahjad Behari Lal- respondent no. 3 for arrears of rent and eviction of the petitioner from the disputed accommodation.
The petitioner contested the suit by filing written statement and challenging the genuineness of signatures of Smt. Kailash Devi, the erstwhile owner/landlady on the disputed will who died on 13.9.1987. He also denied that property was ever bequeathed by Smt. Kailash Devi to respondent no. 3. The plaintiff- respondent claimed himself to be landlord and owner of the disputed accommodation on the basis of registered will dated 4.1.1987.
The petitioner moved application no. 199 dated 25.1.2001 for permission to obtain photographs of disputed signatures on the will with a view to prove forgery stating that the signatures of Smt. Kailash Devi were traced out on the said will expressing doubt on the genuineness of the signautes but the same was rejected vide order dated 1.2.2001 by the trial Court. Aggrieved the petitioner filed S.C.C. Revision no. 16 of 2001, which has also been dismissed vide order dated 20.3.2001 passed by the revisional Court as under :-
"... The perusal of the application 199-Ga 2 of the defendant gives an indication that he is totally confused between the terms landlord and ownership of the house in dispute. Since the present suit is a suit between landlord and tenant for arrears of rent and ejectment, to my view the question of ownership of the plaintiff in the present suit is not of much relevance or importance. If at all it is proved that the plaintiff is the landlord of the disputed house, he can very well maintain a suit against the defendant for arrears of rent and ejectment. To my view the learned trial Court has rightly held that merely on the ground of a doubt regarding the signautures of Smt. Kailash Devi on the disputed will, the defendnant cannot be permitted to obtain expert opinion on this point. Since the relation of landlord and tenant between the parties has been held to be proved in the previous orders of the trial Court, I think that at this stage there is no justification of permitting the defendant to obtain expert opinion regarding the genuineness of the said will and I find no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order of the trial Court while rejecting the application 199 Ga-2 and I am of the view that this revision has got no force and is liable to be dismissed."
A perusal of the impugned orders reveals that it is an interlocutory order which has been passed by the Court below in S.C.C. Suit no. 10 of 1993. It has not been decided finally. The Courts below have rightly held that merely on ground of doubt the petitioner could not, at this stage, be permitted to obtain expert opinion. Admittedly, the relationship of tenant and landlord between the parties has been proved in the trial Court, hence the orders impugned cannot be said to suffer from any illegality or infirmity. In these circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere at this stage against interlocutory orders exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, the trial Court is directed to decide S.C.C. Suit no. 10 of 1993 expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy ot this judgment and order. No order as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.