Procedural irregularities in the admission of evidence and the applicability of Order VII Rule 14 of the CPC, 1908 were central to the Court's decision.

JUDGMENT

Tushar Rao Gedela, J. (Oral)

[The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode]

CAV 104/2022

1. Since learned counsel for the respondent enters appearance, the caveat stands discharged.

CM(M) 383/2022

2. Petitioner challenges the order dated 08.04.2022 passed by the learned Trial Court in CS DJ 1325/2018 titled as "M/s Sriram Compounds Private Limited vs. Sameer Kaushik", whereby an application moved by the petitioner/defendant under Order VII Rule 14 of the CPC, 1908 seeking taking off the record, exhibit PW1/29, which is the Board Resolution dated 06.08.2021 and for de-exhibiting the same, was rejected.

3. Mr. Anuj Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that it is an admitted position that the Board Resolution never formed part of the original list of documents which was filed along with the plaint. He submits that the said document was surreptitiously introduced subsequently, along with the evidence by way of an affidavit on 26.08.2021.

4. Learned counsel submits that vide the order dated 26.08.2021, the learned Trial Court had taken on record the evidence as also recorded the tendering of the said evidence by PW-1 and thereby, exhibit PW1/29, the said Board Resolution, was also taken on record and marked as such.

5. Learned counsel submits that on that particular day, he was not well and a proxy counsel for the petitioner/defendant was present in Court, who was unable to object to the same.

6. Learned counsel further draws attention of this Court to page No. 69, which is a typed copy of the original list of documents to submit that the original list did not contain the Board Resolution which is exhibit PW1/29. In contrast thereto, learned counsel refers to page 133 of the petition, which is purportedly the list of original documents filed on 26.08.2021, whereby under serial No. 15, the said Board Resolution was introduced for the first time.

7. Learned counsel further submits that the said insertion of the Board Resolution exhibit PW1/29 was not just surreptitious but also violative of the provisions of Order 7 Rule 14 sub Rule 3 of the CPC, 1908.

8. Learned counsel submits that the provision of sub Rule 3 of Rule 14 of Order 7 of the CPC, 1908, prohibits an introduction of any document not filed along with the plaint, from being filed on record of a particular case, without the leave of the Court.

9. Learned counsel submits that admittedly in the present case, no such leave was obtained by the respondent/plaintiff from the learned Trial Court.

10. Per contra, Mr. H.K. Chaturvedi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff submits that the question of de-exhibiting of a particular document which already stands exhibited by virtue of the tendering of the evidence of PW-1 does not arise. He submits that any objection thereto, regarding the admissibility or otherwise of the said document or the relevancy of the same, is always available to the petitioner during cross examination of PW-1 and, therefore, the order passed by the learned Trial Court is sustainable in law.

11. Learned counsel also draws attention to page No. 205, which is the order dated 26.08.2021 passed by the learned Trial Court while admitting the documents and tendering the evidence of PW-1, to submit that despite the proxy counsel for the petitioner/defendant being present in the Court, no objection was raised thereto at all and as such, the documents can now only be questioned by the petitioner during the cross-examination, as available to the petitioner.

12. Learned counsel refers to the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in "Purushottam Dass Bangur vs. M.B. Commercial Company Limited" reported in 2009 SCC OnLine Cal 1207, whereby the learned Single Judge of the said High Court had observed that a document which has been tendered in evidence and marked as an exhibit, the question of evidentiary value for the admissibility of the same can only be tested during cross-examination and more so on the groun