Binod Kumar Patawari v. Arun Kumar Prasad

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22500 of 2013 =========================================================== Binod Kumar Patawari S/O Late Multan Chand Patawari R/O Village- Sarmari, P.S- Salmari, Distt- Katihar At Present Doing Businees At Arun Katra, M.G. Road, Police Station- & District- Katihar.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

Arun Kumar Prasad S/O Late Raja Ram Sah R/O Arun Katra, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Katihar, P.S & Distt- Katihar .... .... Respondent =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. RAJENDRA PRASAD SAH, Advocate For the Respondent No.2 : Mr. P.K.Jaipuriyar, Advocate : Mr. Anshuman Jaipuriyar, Advocate =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 08-11-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent.

2. The defendant of Eviction Suit No.3 of 2011 has filed this application for setting aside the order dated 23.08.2013 whereby and whereunder the learned Munsif, Katihar accepted the documents filed by the plaintiff for considering in evidence subject to payment of cost of Rs.500/-. The respondentplaintiff filed the eviction suit on the ground that he needs the premises for starting business. The petitioner-defendant filed written statement and denied the need of the respondent. In course of evidence, the respondent (landlord) filed two documents relating to Commercial Tax Department to show that initially he was running business in the name as style as "Bina Exercise Book" and on account of his ill-health the said business was closed. Now he wants to re-start the said business. The court below while accepting those documents observed that the petitioner-defendant would have opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiff and his witnesses and also to produce evidence in rebuttal. The genuineness of these

Patna High Court CWJC No.22500 of 2013 dt.08-11-2017 2/2 two documents have not been challenged by the petitioner and opportunity has already been given to rebut the same.

3. In view of above facts, I do not find any error in accepting those documents in evidence. This application is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.

(Sanjay Kumar, J) B.Kr./- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 13.11.2017 Transmission Date 13.112017