Dr. Shanti Kumar Vs. Bhagwani Devi Hospital - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
civil procedure code - order 13 rule 2--document issued in 1974--no satisfactory explanation for delay of 10 yrs in filing document--held, application under order 13 rule 2 has been rightly rejected.;no satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay of over ten years in filing the said document has been given. it was issued in 1974. it has come from its proper custody. the learned trial court has rightly rejected the application moved under order 13 rule 2, cpc.;revision dismissed - - the defendant can well prove his case by producing rent receipts issued by smt.milap chandra jain, j.1. this revision petition has been filed under section 115, c.p.c. against the order of the learned civil judge, rajgarh (churu) dated august 05, 1993 by which he has rejected the defendant-petitioner's application moved under order 13 rule 2, c.p.c. for taking on record the appointment order dated 01.10.74 issued in favour of his wife dr. vimla kanta verma by the plaintiff-non-petitioner. the facts of the case giving rise to this revision petition may be summarised thus.2. by order dated 25.04.72, the defendant-petitioner was appointed as the surgeon and chief medical officer on a total consolidated salary of rs. 1,200/- per month in the plaintiff hospital by its secretary. after about 3 1/2 years of his appointment, the defendant-petitioner dr. shanti kumar was given the disputed house on consessional monthly rent of rs. 100/- by the plaintiff-non-petitioner. he left the services of the plaintiff-non-petitioner hospital in the year 1980 or so. in the year 1981, the suit for recovery of arrears of rent, mesne profits and-ejectment was filed by the plaintiff-hospital against the defendant-petitioner. his defence is that the disputed house was not let out to him by the plaintiff hospital but he has taken it on rent of rs. 100/- p.m. from one bhagwani devi and if the plaintiff hospital would have let out the disputed house, no rent would have been charged.3. on 27.0.7.93, the defendant moved and application to take on record the appointment letter dated 01.10.74 of dr. (miss) vimla kanta verma who subsequently became his wife issued by the plaintiff-hospital. it was seriously opposed by the plaintiff. after hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial court dismissed the application on two grounds, namely, (i) great delay and (ii) irrelevant.4. learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner placed great reliance on para no. 7 of the said appointment letter to show that if the disputed house would have been let out by the plaintiff-hospital it would not have charged and rent. he further contended that the defendant's evidence has not as yet commenced and as such it cannot be said that there has been a great delay in moving the said application.5. in reply, it has been contended by learned counsel for the plaintiff-non-petitioner that the document has no relevance in the suit, it has been sought to be taken on record after 12 years and learned trial court has rightly refused to take it on record. he further contended that the defendant has put obstacles repeatedly during the trial of the suit, many frivolous applications were filed and objections were revised including on objection that the plaintiff should be required to pay court-fee on the market value of the disputed property as the suit is in between the licensor and licensee. he also contended that the trial court may be directed to expeditiously decide the suit as the disputed house is urgently required by the plaintiff hospital. he lastly contended that the trial court may also be directed to award mesne profits keeping in view the market value which the defendant-petitioner has himself put in his objection relating to the payment of court-fee. during the arguments, he placed before the court certified copies of the various order-sheets.6. the appointment letter dated 25.04.72 issued by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant-petitioner runs as under:todr. shanti kumar mbbs, ms.,sadulpur (distt. churu).sir,with reference to your application dated 24th instant and the personal discussions held with you, i have to inform you that your application has been favorably considered and you are hereby appointed as surgeon & chief medical officer in this hospital on a total consolidated salary of rs. 1200.00 (rupees one thousand two hundred) only per month. please let me know your acceptance to this letter of appointment and join your duties at the earliest, preferably by-10th may, 1972.thanking you,yours faithfully,sd/-secretaryshree bhagwanidevi hospitalin the face of the terms mentioned in it, it cannot be said that the plaintiff could not have charged rent. the disputed house was given to the defendant 3 1/2 years thereafter. there was a gap of 2 years in between the two appointment letters, one issued to the defendant and anr. issued to his wife dr. vimla kanta verma. during this period of two years, the plaintiff hospital might have decided to give rent free accommodation to its doctors. there is nothing on record to show that such was the practice in the year 1972 when the said appointment letter was issued to the defendant. admittedly, rent is being paid at the rate of rs. 100/- per month. the plaintiff's case is that it let out the disputed house to the defendant and the defendant's case, on the contrary, is that he took it on rent from smt. bhagwani devi. the defendant can well prove his case by producing rent receipts issued by smt. bhagwani devi to him and also by producing her. the said appointment letter dated 01.10.74 issued in favour of dr. vimla kanta verma does not go to prove his case. the learned trial court has rightly held that it is not a relevant document.7. no satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay of over ten years in filing the said document has been given. it was issued in 1974. it has come from its proper custody. the learned trial court has rightly rejected the application moved under order 13 rule 2, cpc.8. there is a great force in the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff-hospital that the defendant-petitioner is greatly delaying the disposal of the suit. the order-sheets of the suit show that following dates were fixed for the defendant's evidence: (1) 09.12.92, (2) 30.01.93, (3) 23.02.93, (4) 08.04.93, (5) 28.04.93, and (6) 25.05.93. the defendant has not examined even himself on any of these dates. admittedly, the suit is pending since the year 1981. it has been filed for the ejectment of the defendant-petitioner on the ground mentioned in clause (g) of sub-section (1) of section 13 of the rajasthan premises (control of rent & eviction) act, 1950. the defence set up by the defendant-petitioner may also attract the provisions of clause (f) of sub-section (1) of section 13 of the said act.9. the trial court will keep the provisions of order 17 rule 1, c.p.c. in its view while considering the defendant's application for further adjournments.10. while decreeing the suit for ejectment, the trial court will also keep in view the provisions of order 20 rule 12, c.p.c. and may direct an enquiry for mesne profits. in the inquiry, it may take into consideration the valuation of the disputed property which the defendant-petitioner himself put forward in his application relating to the payment of court-fee.11. the order-sheet of 28.04.93 further shows that the defendant moved an application before the trial court that he had moved an application for transfer of the suit and requested for stay of the proceedings. order-sheets of subsequent dates are silent about this application. the trial court is directed not to stay the proceedings of the suit on any ground in future unless a certified copy of the stay order of this court or of the district judge is filed.12. the revision petition is dismissed with costs with the aforesaid directions.