While going through my old notes I stumbled upon the diary which I used to keep when I started my practice as a young lawyer. Consequently, for the sake of posterity, I wish to record the day I first entered into the courts as a newly qualified advocate. The date was 3rd September 2016. The courts were the Tis Hazari District Courts in New Delhi.
I had been visiting the chambers
of a Learned Advocate who had a well-established practice. I had started being
regular to his chambers and used to spend most of the day reading case files
and helping him prepare list of dates, case notes, do research on judgments
etc. It was during the course of visiting his chambers that I was asked to attend
court hearings and observe court proceedings as that would help me in
understanding court craft better. I was told that a lawyer learns more by
observing rather than reading.
As a newbie lawyer, I did not
want to directly go to the court of the District and Sessions Judge. You can
say that I was still green behind my ears and did not want to thrust myself before
the gaze of the senior most judge of the court, even as an observant. On the
civil side, I was inclined more to visit the court of the Civil Judge to see the
matters being argued, before making my way up to the court of the District
Judge. Hence, I randomly wandered into the courts and settled for the court of
Learned (henceforth “Ld.”) Civil Judge Mahima Rai, Delhi Judicial Service.
The case was Meeta Kumar vs
Surender Kumar Jain. At the time of writing this article, almost 7 years
after the date of the hearing which I attended, the case is still going on
before the court of the Ld. Civil Judge and is at the stage of
Defendant/Respondent Evidence. Its first hearing took place on 14th
October 2014.
I am presenting here a full background, facts and final disposal order of the court so as to make sense of the arguments advanced during the hearing that I duly noted down in my diary.
Legal background of the Hearing
It is important to understand the
background of the hearing and the legal provisions involved in order to make
sense of the arguments advanced during its course.
The hearing was taking place for
the adjudication of two applications filed Under Order 11 Rule 12 and 14 read
with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908 on behalf of the plaintiff.
The provisions read as follows:
Order XI –
Discovery and Inspection
Rule 12 – Application
for discovery of documents – Any party may, without filing any affidavit,
apply to the Court for an order directing any other party to any suit to make
discovery on oaths, of the documents which are or have been in his possession
or power, relating to any matter in question therein. On the hearing of such
application the Court may either refuse or adjourn the same, if satisfied that
such discovery is not necessary, or not necessary at that stage of the suit, or
make such order, either generally or limited to certain classes of documents,
as may, in its discretion be thought fit: Provided that discovery shall not be
ordered when and so far as the Court shall be of opinion that it is not necessary
either for disposing fairly of the suit or for saving costs.
Rule 14 – Production
of Documents – It shall be lawful for the court, at any time during the
pendency of any suit, to order the production by any party thereto, upon oath,
of such of the documents in his possession or power, relating to any matter in
question in such suit, as the court shall think right; and the Court may deal
with such documents, when produced, in such manner as shall appear just.
Section 151 – Saving
of inherent powers of the court – Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to
limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Court to make such orders
as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process
of the court.
Facts of the Case
These applications were filed in
the suit for permanent and mandatory injunction filed by the plaintiff.
The mother of the plaintiff was
the owner landlady of a property. She had executed a will during her lifetime,
bequeathing 1st and 2nd Floor with terrace in respect of the
property in favour of the plaintiff and the basement and the ground floor
portion of the property in favour of the plaintiff’s brother. She expired
shortly thereafter. The plaintiff’s brother too expired shortly after the expiry
of the mother of the plaintiff.
Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were the
tenants in respect of the back portion of 2nd floor of the said
property. The tenanted portion of the property was the suit property. The
defendants executed a lease deed/rent agreement with the mother of the
plaintiff while she was still alive. Vide the said rent agreement they agreed
to pay all the consumption charges such as water and electricity in respect of
the suit property.
After the death of the plaintiff’s
mother, the plaintiff served an eviction notice on the defendant nos. 1 and 2 under
the Delhi Rent Control Act as she required the suit property for her bonafide
requirement/use. During the pendency of the eviction petition before the court
of the Rent Controller, the defendant nos. 1 and 2 were in continued use and
occupation of the suit property and were consuming the water and electricity.
By way of the suit for permanent
and mandatory injunction, the plaintiff prayed that the defendants be asked to
clear up to date water bills or pay her the cost for the same along with
applicable interest. The plaintiff also prayed for permanent injunction against
the Delhi Jal Board (“DJB”) restraining it from supplying water in respect of
the suit property.
In their written statement before
the court, the defendant nos. 1 and 2 contended that that the water supply stood
discontinued for last more than a decade. However, they did not file any
document in support of the same.
By way of the first application,
the plaintiff prayed that the court direct defendant nos. 1 and 2 to file their
affidavit swearing the date of disconnection of water supply and file the
relevant document of disconnection of water supply issued by defendant no. 3, DJB.
By way of the second application,
the plaintiff prayed that the court direct the defendant no. 3 DJB to file the
necessary documents:
(i) date of disconnection of water connection
(ii) copy of notice sent to defendant nos. 1 and 2 prior to the disconnection of water connection
(iii) record of assessment and calculation of the amount of bill in question in respect of water connection
Arguments advanced during the
hearing on 03rd September 2016
My court diary records the following
proceedings which are reproduced here verbatim:
The judge asks why court notice was issued.
Application filed under Order 11 Rule 12 and 14 by Counsel for Plaintiff.
Counsel for the Plaintiff demands Defendant No. 3 to submit all the documents in the court.
Counsel for Defendant No. 3 argues that DJB has sent defendant No. 1 and 2, bills regularly and refers to his Written Statement and Status Report.
Date of Disconnection (30th July)
Notice.
Judge asks the counsel for Defendant No. 3 that when there is a specific application there should be a specific reply.
Counsel for defendant argues that they have not filed documents in the court because the plaintiff has no right for receiving the documents.
Counsel for the Plaintiff argues no separate notice for disconnection of water meter was issued.
Judge notes the submission of both the counsels on the case file.
Counsel for Defendant No. 1 and 2 busy in another court. Matter to be heard again at 11:30.
(At 11:30)
Counsel for the Plaintiff Present.
Counsel for Defendant No. 1 and 2 Present.
Counsel for the Plaintiff draws attention to Page No. 7 Para No. 5.
He argues who is responsible to pay the outstanding amount?
Judge asks when has the bill been raised and when was the water supply disconnected?
Counsel for the Plaintiff answers the same.
Judge asks for the prayer.
Counsel for the Plaintiff prays for the issuance of notice to the defendants.
Counsel for the Defendant No. 1 and 2 argues that according to the status report of DJB the water meter has been disconnected on 11.07.2014. She argues that the application of the plaintiff is not maintainable since all the records and documents in their power and possession has been submitted in the court. She argues that application will be maintainable if the suit is maintainable.
Judge asks why is the suit not maintainable?
Counsel for Defendant No. 1 and 2 argues that there is no privity of contract between their client and the plaintiff. The plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit.
The judge refers to Order 11 Rule 12 and 14.
Counsel for the Plaintiff argues that who will pay the water bill if the tenants vacate their tenancy or are evicted under the orders of the court?
Judge asks counsel for defendant No. 1 and 2 about the accounts of payment filed before the court.
The counsel for Defendant No. 1 and 2 makes a distinction between primary and secondary evidence. She argues that there has been no water supply since 2001 from the said water connection. She argues that the Defendant No. 1 and 2 have been purchasing water as shown in the ledger accounts and have not received water supply from DJB. She argues that the water meter is defective too.
Judge examines both the bills. Arguments heard on both the applications of the plaintiff. Matter posted for orders on 22.09.2016.
Order
The following order was recorded
by the Ld. Civil Judge:
Arguments heard on both the
applications of the plaintiff under Order 11 Rule 12 and 14 CPC against
defendant nos. 1 and 2 and defendant no. 3 respectively.
Now, to come up for orders on
both the abovesaid applications on 22.09.2014.
Subsequent Order on 22.09.2014
The subsequent order recorded the
arguments made by both the sides and held as follows:
Defendant No. 3/Delhi Jal
Board has already placed on record the status report regarding the water
connection. They have also filed a detailed bill clearly mentioning how the
same was raised and that the said meter was disconnected on 30.07.2014.
Further, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for defendant No. 3 that there is no
need for a separate order for discontinuing the water supply as it is mentioned
in each and every bill raised by defendant No. 3 that in case of nonpayment of
all the arrears before the due date, the
connection would be liable for disconnection. They have also filed copy
of the cutting order dated 30.07.2014. Moreover, it is submitted by all the
defendants that the plaintiff has no locus standi to ask for the said record
in respect of the water connection as the same stands in the name of defendant
No.1 & 2, meaning thereby that there is privity of contract between
defendant Nos. 1 & 2 on one side and defendant No. 3 on the other. Thus, in
view of the above discussions and that the information/documents sought by the
plaintiff from all the defendants are already on record, both the applications
filed by the plaintiff U/o 11 Rule 12 & 14 r/w Sec. 151 CPC are held not
maintainable. Both the abovementioned
applications stand dismissed and disposed off accordingly.
Experience of the First Hearing
Needless to say, I did not have the full background of the hearing that I have produced in this article at the time of the hearing. I was more focused on how the counsels for the plaintiff and the respondent presented their arguments and how they answered the questions posed by the judge. This turned out to be a memorable experience for me not just because it was the first court hearing that I attended, but also because of the fact that I got to see the judicial machinery in action.
I came back from the court and got busy in the grind of advocacy till today when I once again stumbled upon my diary which transported me back to this hearing.
I duly wish both the plaintiff and the defendants of this case that their matter comes to an end soon and the court does justice to both the parties.
No comments:
Post a Comment