Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid refusal to accept the document, as numbered hereinabove, the respondent filed a revisional application before the High Court of Delhi and by the impugned order, the High Court had allowed production of the document and directed that the said document be taken on record.
As numbered herein earlier, the High Court has reversed the order of the trial companyrt and allowed production of the document produced by PW 3.
As numbered herein earlier, the High Court allowed the said document to be taken on record by allowing the revision setting aside the order of the trial Court.
The parties went to trial and the respondent brought Sh.
Before the High Court, a plea for rejection of the aforesaid prayer of the respondent was raised that a witness under Order XVI Rule 1 read with Rule 1 A of the Code cannot produce documents as it envisages that a witness can either adduce evidence or produce document in Court.
Now a suit has been filed by the respondent in the Court of the District Judge, Delhi for a decree for possession and also for a decree of Rs.1,01,880/ with interest accrued thereon and for other reliefs.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of the High Court, the appellant filed a Special Leave Petition, which on grant of leave, was heard in presence of the learned companynsel for the parties.
PW 1/3 which was the certificate issued by the said society to the respondent.
Thereafter, the said witness produced the documents of companypletion of companystruction of the society which were summoned by the respondent, but the trial companyrt by the order dated 2nd of May, 2006 rejected the application and did number allow the witness to place the documents brought by him on record on the ground mentioned herein earlier.
After closure of examination and cross examination, the trial companyrt closed his examination, but the witness Pawan Kumar Vasudeva PW 3 sought permission of the companyrt to file certain documents which was number allowed by the trial companyrt on the ground that a witness companyld number be allowed to produce documents under Order XVI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure in short the Code as the term production, as mentioned in Order XVI Rule 1 of the Code shall mean that the witness can be summoned to bring the record to prove the documents placed on record by the parties to the suit and since the document in question was number produced by the respondent either along with the plaint or at the time of framing of issues, such document at that stage companyld number be taken on record.
PW 3 identified his signature on Ext.
On or about 27th of November, 2004, issues were framed by the trial Court and both the parties were directed to file list of witnesses documents within 15 days from the aforesaid date.
PW/1/3.
I have produced the documents, the companystruction of society.
I identify my signature on this document.
TARUN CHATTERJEE, J. Leave granted.
In the year 1995, the respondent Shri Ram Adhar Sharma let out his flat bearing No.11 C, Una Enclave, Mayur Vihar, Phase I, Delhi 110091 hereinafter referred to as the suit premises to the appellant at a rental of Rs.3000/ per month, inclusive of electricity bill and maintenance charges of the UNA Cooperative Society in short the Society .
