Back
2019 Supreme(Cal) 451
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, J.
Kishore Kumar Khaitan & Another - Petitioner
Versus
Praveen Kumar Singh - Respondent
C.O. No. 1282 of 2019
Decided On : 10-07-2019
For the Petitioners:S. Datta, Debsoumya Basak, Ashotosh Mukherjee, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Kumarjyoti Tewari, Tarunjyoti Tewari, Rajlakshmi Ghatak, Advocates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity for sufficient reason to permit the production of a document at a later stage and the importance of providing a proper explanation for any delay in making such an application.
Headnote:
Revisional Application - Tenancy Right - Code of Civil Procedure, Order XVIII Rule 2A, Order XVIII Rule 17 - The court discussed the scope of Order XVIII Rule 2A and Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and their applicability to the case. It highlighted the necessity for sufficient reason to permit the production of a document at a later stage and emphasized the importance of providing a proper explanation for any delay in making such an application. The court also considered the observations of the Supreme Court in a related matter and the implications for the present case.
Fact of the Case:
The defendants challenged an order allowing the plaintiff to adduce further evidence to bring on record the original of a tenancy agreement, a photocopy of which was previously marked as exhibit no.1. The defendants argued that there was no scope for granting further opportunity to produce the original document, and the application was intended to protract the litigation. The plaintiff argued that the original document should be permitted as it was crucial for deciding the suit.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court acted without jurisdiction in allowing the application under Order XVIII Rule 2A and permitting the original document to be produced at such a belated stage. The revisional application was allowed, setting aside the impugned order.
Issues: The main issue was the scope and applicability of Order XVIII Rule 2A and Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and whether the delay in filing the application for production of the original document was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity for sufficient reason to permit the production of a document at a later stage and the importance of providing a proper explanation for any delay in making such an application. It also considered the observations of the Supreme Court in a related matter and the implications for the present case.
Final Decision: The revisional application was allowed, setting aside the impugned order. The plaintiff was permitted to withdraw the costs, if deposited/paid in terms of the impugned order. There was no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT :
1. The defendants in a suit for declaration of tenancy right and permanent injunction have preferred the instant revisional application, challenging an order allowing the application of the plaintiff/opposite party under Order XVIII Rule 2A, read with Section 151, of the Code of Civil Procedure, permitting the opposite party to adduce further evidence to bring on record the original of a purported tenancy agreement, a photocopy of which was previously marked as exhibit no.1.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that a photocopy of the said document had already been exhibited and, as such, there was no scope of granting further opportunity to the opposite party to produce the original thereof.
3. It is argued that the application for production of additional evidence was filed at an advanced stage of the suit and was intended to protract the litigation.
4. In the absence of any explanation as to the inordinate delay in filing the said application, the trial court, it is submitted, acted without jurisdiction in allowing the same. That apart, it is argued that the opposite party sought to fill up his lacunae in not producing the document previously, by the present application.
5. It is further argued that the scope of Order XVIII Rule 2A of the Code is restricted to production of a witness, that too suo moto, by the court and there was no scope under the said provision, of the court permitting the production of a document on the prayer of a party.
6. It is submitted that on March 5, 2008 the plaintiff/opposite party had filed an application under Order XIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The said application was allowed by the trial court vide Order No. 12 dated March 17, 2008, thereby calling for the case record of a miscellaneous appeal, bearing Miscellaneous Appeal No. 145 of 1998 from the office of the Additional District Judge, First Court at Howrah, as because the documents relevant for the peremptory hearing of the suit were lying therein.
7. It is submitted that evidence had been led in connection with the said miscellaneous appeal, including a photocopy of the purported tenancy agreement-in-question being exhibited therein.
8. It is further argued that a photocopy of the said document was again exhibited in the suit itself as long back as on April 8, 2008, without objection, and marked as Exhibit -1.
9. The said purported agreement (dated April 17, 1998) had been taken in custody by the CID for the purpose of ascertaining the veracity of the signature thereon. It is submitted that the evidence of the defendants' witnesses was finally closed on November 27, 2013.
10. Thereafter the opposite party waited for about three-and-half years and filed the current application under Order XVIII Rule 2A of the Code only on April 3, 2017.
11. It is thus submitted that the plaintiff/opposite party was well aware of the document, at least from the inception of the suit, and waited for an inordinately long time to make the present prayer, that too long after the evidence in the suit was closed.
12. As such, the trial court acted without jurisdiction in giving a premium to such delay by permitting the original of the said document to be produced as evidence at this belated stage.
13. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/opposite party submits that the photocopy of the document-in-question was already exhibited, both in the miscellaneous appeal and as Exhibit -1 in the suit, the latter without objection. As such, the plaintiff is not seeking to fill up any lacunae, more so since the photocopy was already exhibited without objection. It is argued that there is little scope for the petitioners to object to the said original, having not objected to its photocopy when the same was marked as Exhibit -1 in the suit.
14. Learned counsel for the opposite party further submits that a report of the CID, indicating that the signature on the disputed document was authentic, was also marked as an exhibit in the suit.
15. As such, it is argu
