IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO. No. 560/2009. Date of Decision :December 22,2009. Raj Kumar …Petitioner. Versus Jagmohan and others. ….Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1No For the petitioner : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents .: Mr. N.K.Thakur, Advocate. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) Petitioner-Raj Kumar has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 5th September, 2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Court No.1, Amb, District Una, H.P. in CMA. No. 95 of 2009 in Civil Suit No. 36 of 2001, whereby his application filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to bring on record the certified copies of proceedings of Case No. 6/E/2005 titled as State Vs. Jagmohan Lal et. by way of additional evidence stands dismissed. The petitioner is the defendant-tenant and the respondents are the plaintiffs-landlords. After determination 1 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 of the defendant’s tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, plaintiffs filed a suit for possession of the demised premises. In the written statement, the defendant admitted the plaintiffs to be the landlords to whom the rent was paid. Importantly no issue qua the relationship between the parties was framed by the trial Court. The case was put to trial. With the completion of the plaintiffs’ evidence, defendant moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. seeking to withdraw the admission of relationship between the parties. In terms of order dated 6.6.2007 the said application was dismissed. Admittedly, the same has attained finality. The operative portion of the order reads as under: “It further reveals that the present application was moved when the applicant/defendant was to produce his evidence. This further questions the bonafideness of the applicant/defendant in moving the present application. The proposed amendment further would amount to withdrawal of material admission made by the applicant/defendant in favour of the plaintiff/respondent by not disputing the ownership/landlordship of plaintiff. It is not a case of the applicant/defendant that earlier admission was due to mis-conception or was erroneous. Further, in the present dispute there is no question of ownership of the land of shop premises is involved. It is a case of ejectment filed by the landlord against the tenant. Hence, it further reveals that the proposed amendment is against the rule of estoppel as enshrined under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, whereby 3 the tenant of immovable property during the continuance of tenancy shall not be permitted to deny the title of the landlord to such immovable property at the beginning of the tenancy.” Only when the entire evidence was recorded and the matter was fixed for final arguments, the defendant moved an application to bring on record additional document by leading additional evidence. In terms of the impugned order, the application stands dismissed for the reason that the inter se relationship between the parties not in dispute, the documents sought to be placed on record would in no manner having a bearing on the case and would not be necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In terms of the application, the defendant seeks to place on record the certified copies of the proceedings initiated by the State under Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1953 with respect to Khasra No. 1718 for the reason that the plaintiffs are the encroachers on the said land. These facts are stated to have come to the defendant’s knowledge only recently. The application was filed on 24th May, 2008 when admittedly the matter was listed for hearing of final arguments. The plaintiffs opposed the application on the ground that the relationship between the parties is not in dispute. 4 From the record, it is evident that the defendant himself has admitted his relationship with the plaintiffs to be that of a landlord and a tenant. Not only in the pleadings but also in his oral deposition, the defendant has admitted to have paid rent to the plaintiffs. There is no final adjudication in the proceedings initiated by the State holding the plaintiffs to be encroachers. That apart the plaintiffs being landlords are entitled to seek ejectment of the tenant, in accordance with law under the provisions of the Transfer of the Property Act, 1882. The defendant has failed to disclose the material particulars and the exact date of knowledge of the pendancy of the proceedings against the plaintiffs. Record reveals that the defendant had been taking adjournments and, in fact, was imposed cost of Rs. 200/- for not examining his witnesses on the date fixed. Mr. Thakur, learned counsel for the plaintiffs has rightly contended that repeated applications filed by the defendant are with the sole object and purpose of protracting the proceedings. Mr. Ajay Sharma has relied upon the decisions reported in Gautam Sarup Vs. Leela Jetly and others (2008) S.C.C. 85, Union of India Vs. Pramod Gupta (dead) by LRs and others (2005) 12 SCC and M/s Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. and another Vs. M/s Ladha Ram and Company (1976) 4 S.C.C. 320, to contend that it is open for the parties to explain their admissions. 5 The decision in no manner advance the defendant’s case as in the said cases, the Court was dealing with an application for amendment of the pleadings filed under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. which in the instant case already stands dismissed. As has been noticed herein earlier, the provisions of Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be invoked to defeat the ends of justice which, in turn may lead to miscarriage of justice. I find no illegality, impropriety or irregularity in the impugned order. The present petition is accordingly dismissed. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. December 22,2009(R)