Nawab Singh Vs. Inderjit Kaur

Nawab Singh vs inderjit Kaur

Type Court Judgment Court Supreme Court of India Decided May 06, 1999

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/654101

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/654101
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judge: S.P. Bharucha and; R.C. Lahoti, JJ.
Decided On: May 06, 1999
Case Number: C.A. No. 2735 of 1999 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 18975 of 1998)
Subject: Tenancy

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- LABOUR & SERVICES Promotion: [R.V.Raveendran & Markandey Katju,JJ] U.P.Public Works Department Group-B Civil Engineering Service Rules (2004), R.5(ii) - Requisite qualification -Administrative authorities are in a better position to decide - Court would not interfere with their decision - R.5 treating Diploma hold...

Key legal issue: Tenancy
Acts & sections: Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 65

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Nawab Singh

Respondent

inderjit Kaur

Legal References

Acts: Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 65
Reported In: AIR1999SC1668; JT1999(3)SC419; 1999(3)SCALE170; (1999)4SCC413; 1999(2)LC934(SC)

Excerpt

- labour & services promotion: [r.v.raveendran & markandey katju,jj] u.p.public works department group-b civil engineering service rules (2004), r.5(ii) - requisite qualification -administrative authorities are in a better position to decide - court would not interfere with their decision - r.5 treating diploma holder and degree holder junior engineers as equals is not unconstitutional. merely because diploma and degree holder junior engineers were earlier treated differently does not mean that they cannot be treated identically subsequently. - in our opinion, the ends of justice would be satisfied if the appellant is allowed an opportunity of adducing secondary evidence but subject to terms......veracity. the trial court was not justified in forming that opinion without affording the appellant an opportunity of adducing secondary evidence. the appellant has alleged the original rent to be in possession of the respondent. the case was covered by clause (a) of section 65 of the indian evidence act, 1872.4. learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the appellant was protracting the trial and being in possession of the premises was interested in delaying the hearing of the suit. that may or may not be true but the fact remains that that is not the reason on which the rejection by the trial court is founded. in our opinion, the ends of justice would be satisfied if the appellant is allowed an opportunity of adducing secondary evidence but subject to terms.5. the appeal is allowed. the impugned order of the trial court dated 3.2.98 and the order of the high court dated 16.9.98 passed in revision are both set-aside. the appellant is granted leave of adducing secondary evidence of the existence, condition and contents of the rent note dated 23.9.1994. the trial court shall appoint a date on which the appellant shall have the liberty of adducing such secondary evidence as he may choose to do but if he fails to adduce such evidence on the appointed date, he shall not be entitled to an adjournment for the purpose. the appellant shall also be liable to pay costs quantified at rs. 5000/- (rupees five thousand only) to the respondent, having regard to all the circumstances.6. we make it clear that we have neither formed nor expressed any opinion touching the merits of the controversy in issue before the trial court.7. the appeal stand disposed of in the above said terms.

Full Judgment

ORDER

R.C. Lahoti, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant has filed a suit for permanent preventive injunction restraining the defendant - respondent from interfering with the possession of the appellant. The appellant alleges himself to be a tenant in the suit shop inducted by the defendant - respondent as per rent note dated 23.9.94. The tenancy is seriously disputed by the respondent. At the trial, after having taken about 14 adjournments for adducing evidence, the appellant moved an application seeking production of the rent note from the custody of the respondent, which application was rejected by the trial court. On the next date of hearing the appellant moved an application seeking leave of the court for production of secondary evidence of the rent note dated 23.9.94, which application has also been rejected by the trial court. This order was challenged by the appellant by filing a civil revision before the High Court which has been dismissed.

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the trial court was not justified in rejecting the prayer seeking leave of the court for production of secondary evidence. The prayer has been rejected mainly on the ground that the copy of the rent note sought to be produced by the appellant was of doubtful veracity. The trial court was not justified in forming that opinion without affording the appellant an opportunity of adducing secondary evidence. The appellant has alleged the original rent to be in possession of the respondent. The case was covered by Clause (a) of Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the appellant was protracting the trial and being in possession of the premises was interested in delaying the hearing of the suit. That may or may not be true but the fact remains that that is not the reason on which the rejection by the trial court is founded. In our opinion, the ends of justice would be satisfied if the appellant is allowed an opportunity of adducing secondary evidence but subject to terms.

5. The appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the trial court dated 3.2.98 and the order of the High Court dated 16.9.98 passed in revision are both set-aside. The appellant is granted leave of adducing secondary evidence of the existence, condition and contents of the rent note dated 23.9.1994. The trial court shall appoint a date on which the appellant shall have the liberty of adducing such secondary evidence as he may choose to do but if he fails to adduce such evidence on the appointed date, he shall not be entitled to an adjournment for the purpose. The appellant shall also be liable to pay costs quantified at Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to the respondent, having regard to all the circumstances.

6. We make it clear that we have neither formed nor expressed any opinion touching the merits of the controversy in issue before the trial court.

7. The appeal stand disposed of in the above said terms.

Same Court & Year Supreme Court of India · 1999 Same Parties Nawab Singh vs inderjit Kaur Same Subject Tenancy Same Judge S.P. Bharucha and; R.C. Lahoti, JJ. Acts & Sections Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 65

Tenancy