Back
2019 Supreme(Bom) 1277
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.
Shri. Navinchandra Khimchand Shah - Petitioner
Versus
M/s. PUTCO Pvt Ltd. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 2106 of 2018
Decided On : 25-07-2019
For the Appellant : Mr. Vishal Kande, a/w. Rajesh Chainani, I/b M/s S. Pathak & Co.
For the Respondent: Abdul Waheed Champawalla
The judgment establishes the discretionary nature of the court's power to recall witnesses and receive additional evidence, emphasizing the need for valid and sufficient reasons for belated production of evidence.
Headnote:
Additional Documentary Evidence - Civil Procedure Code - Order 13 Rule 1, Order 18 Rule 17, Section 151 - The court discussed the admissibility of additional documentary evidence, the role of the defendant in producing documents, and the procedural requirements for producing evidence at a late stage. The judgment emphasized the discretionary nature of the court's power to recall witnesses and receive additional evidence, cautioning against routine use of such provisions and highlighting the need for valid and sufficient reasons for belated production of evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs sued two defendants for eviction, alleging subletting of the property. The second defendant sought to produce additional documentary evidence during cross-examination, leading to a series of applications and court orders.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Trial Court erred in allowing the second defendant's applications to produce additional evidence, emphasizing the procedural requirements and the defendant's failure to provide valid and sufficient reasons for the belated production of evidence.
Issues: The admissibility of additional documentary evidence, the defendant's duty to produce documents, and the procedural requirements for producing evidence at a late stage.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Civil Procedure Code provisions, including Order 13 Rule 1, Order 18 Rule 17, and Section 151, emphasizing the discretionary nature of the court's power to recall witnesses and receive additional evidence, and the need for valid and sufficient reasons for belated production of evidence.
Final Decision: The court set aside the Trial Court's orders allowing the defendant's applications to produce additional evidence, allowing the parties to proceed with the trial as it stands.
Please provide the legal document content (to replace {content}) and any specific query or analysis requested. I'll extract key points with proper references (e.g., (!) (!) ) as instructed.
JUDGMENT :
Facts: The petitioners are the plaintiffs in Suit No. 560/972 of 2001. They sued two defendants for eviction. The principal allegation is that the first defendant, as the original tenant, sublet the property to the second defendant. Both the defendants filed their defence. Then, the Trial Court framed the issues.
2. After framing of the issues, the plaintiffs completed their evidence. When the second defendant was being examined as D.W. 1, he applied below Exhibit 73 to produce certain documents. It seems that the second defendant came up with that application because he had been confronted with questions in the cross-examination. And those questions relate to certain documents which he did not produce. The Trial Court has, however, rejected that application through its order, dated 13th July 2016.
3. Aggrieved, the second defendant filed Writ Petition No. 9965 of 2016. This Court, through its judgment dated 04th October 2016, refused to interfere. At any rate, of the two reliefs he has sought, this Court has felt that the Trial Court has not adequately dealt with the second question: the production of the rent receipts. So, this Court has remanded the matter to the Trial Court.
4. On remand, the Trial Court reconsidered the issue and passed an order on dated 26th October 2016, rejecting the second defendant’s claim to produce further documents. Though the second defendant has continued with his evidence in cross-examination, he came up with two more applications: Application below Exhibit 83 and Application below Exhibit 86.
5. Both the counsel agree those two applications are substantially the same. Through those applications, the second defendant wanted to produce additional documentary evidence to support his contentions. Along with those two applications, he has annexed “additional affidavits in lieu of examination-in-chief.” As the plaintiffs opposed those applications, the Trial Court allowed those applications through its order, dated 17th November 2017.
Odd-Practice, if it were:
6. At this stage, I queried whether two writ petitions were filed against the two orders in two separate applications. But I was informed that only one writ petition was filed. Prima facie, I felt that such a course of action is impermissible. At any rate, the counsel on either side has submitted that it is perhaps a technical omission and that need not affect the adjudication. According to them, this Court permits such practice, so I can consider the matter on merits. Skeptical as I am on such procedure, I proceed to decide on the merits.
Submissions:
Petitioner’s:
7. In the above factual backdrop, Shri Vishal Kanade, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that this Court and, thereafter, the Trial Court has already rejected the respondent’s Applications for additional documentary evidence. And that order has become final. Now, through these two applications, the respondent wanted to re-introduce what has otherwise been prohibited through binding judicial directives. According to Shri Kanade, CPC permits no suitor to fill the lacunae in his case only because the rival has questioned them. In that context, he has taken me through the record, especially the applications and reasoning of the Trial Court for allowing those applications.
8. Shri Kanade has further submitted that besides seeking to place on record the additional sets of documents, the respondent has also filed “additional affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief.” This practice of filing additional documents, despite their earlier rejection; and additional affidavit as if they were covering letters to those documents, according to Shri Kanade, is unknown to law and entirely impermissible.
Second Respondent’s:
9. In response, Shri Abdul Waheed Champawalla, the learned counsel for the respondents, has contended that the Courts have always tried to do substantial justice instead of letting the matter perish on the altar of technicalities. For this, he has drawn my atten
