Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI, J.
Nasir Ismail Indragadia & Others – Petitioners
Versus
Jiyauddin Umarmiya Indragadia & Others – Respondents
R/Special Civil Application No. 4225 Of 2018
Decided On : 13-02-2023
Exhibit-104 and Exhibit-110 - Dispute over admissibility of documents - Order-XIII Rule-1(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 76 of the Evidence Act
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the rejection of their applications to exhibit documents during the plaintiff's evidence and to refer to the same during cross-examination. The trial court refused the applications, stating that the documents had to be proved by the defendants after the plaintiff's evidence, and that referring to the documents during cross-examination would be a waste of time as the plaintiff denied knowledge of them.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the trial court's decision, stating that the orders had not been challenged and that permitting the applications would amount to reviewing the earlier order. However, the court directed the petitioners to prove the documents after the plaintiff's cross-examination and allowed them to seek a recall of the plaintiff and witnesses if the documents were proved.
Issues: Admissibility of documents during plaintiff's evidence and cross-examination
Ratio Decidendi: Documents must be proved by the defendants after the plaintiff's evidence; referring to documents during cross-examination when the plaintiff denies knowledge would be futile; court cannot review its own order without a challenge; petitioners allowed to seek recall of witnesses if documents are proved
Final Decision: The petition stands disposed of, and the suit may proceed in accordance with the court's directions.
ORDER :
1. By way of the present petition, the petitioners herein have aggrieved by the impugned order dated 20.12.2017 passed below Exh.104 as well as impugned order dated 31.01.2018 passed below Exh.110 in the proceedings of the Special Civil Suit No. 24 of 2017.
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition for the adjudication of the dispute in question read thus:
2.1. The Special Civil Suit No. 27 of 2012 (subsequently re-numbered as Special Civil Suit No. 24 of 2017, again renumbered as Special Civil Suit No. 45 of 2018 pending before the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Addl C.J.M., Taluka Court, Umargam, Dist.: Vapi) came to be preferred by the respondent no.1 – original plaintiff against the petitioners (original defendant nos. 5, 6, 7 and 9) and other co-defendants seeking the relief of declaration and challenge to the registered sale deeds, possession of the suit land and consequential relief of perpetual injunction.
2.2. It is the case of the original plaintiff that the suit lands being Survey No. 129/3, 131/2, 132/1, 135/12 and 212/6 situated at Mouje: Sanjan, Tal.: Umargam, Dist.: Valsad were belonging to the sole ownership of the great grandfather of the respondent – original plaintiff i.e. one Musaji Fakirmiya, who had passed away intestate, and therefore, it is claimed by the plaintiff that the plaintiff alongwith original defendant nos. 11 to 19 and 20 to 24 are the legal heirs of the said Musaji and are the true owners of the suit land. It is the further the case of the plaintiff that in January, 2012, the plaintiff came to know about the execution of the registered sale deed No. 9642 dated 05.11.2008 by defendant nos. 1 to 4 in favour of the defendant no.5 for Survey No. 129/3, albeit the fact remains that defendant nos. 1 to 4 are not the heirs and successors of deceased Musaji. It is the further the case of the original plaintiff – respondent No.1 herein that, the plaintiff – respondent no.1 herein having came to know regarding the execution of registered sale deed No. 1022 dated 03.06.2011 by defendant no.5 in favour of defendant no.6 for total sale consideration of Rs.4,91,000/-. It is averred in the plaint that, as defendant nos. 1 to 4 are not the successors and heirs of deceased Musaji, the registered sale deeds are fraudulent and bad in law.
2.3. It is the case of the plaintiff that, the plaintiff has in fact admitted the factum of partition in the plaint, whereby, the plaintiff has stated that the partition deed that had been executed between the defendant nos. 1 to 5, 7, 9 and 25 and 26 in respect of Survey Nos. 129/3, 131/2 and 135/12, however, it is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff was not a party to such partition deed. Accordingly, the plaintiff has prayed for in the suit to set aside the two registered sale deeds dated 05.11.2008 and 03.06.2011 respectively, seeking a declaration that the defendant nos. 5 and 6 have no right by virtue of being purchasers in the said sale transactions, for direction against the defendant no. 6 to provide for the peaceful possession of Survey No. 129/3, and for a declaration that the plaintiff alongwith defendant nos. 11 to 24 are the real owners of the suit lands and further relief seeking perpetual injunction. Copy of the plaint being Special Civil Suit No. 24 of 2017 is duly produced at Annexure-C.
2.4. The defendant nos. 11 to 16 and 18 to 22 filed their written statement in the aforesaid Special Civil Suit No. 24 of 2017 on 18.07.2012 vide Exh.18 in support of the case of the respondent no.1 herein – original plaintiff.
2.5. The petitioners herein being original defendant nos. 5, 6, 7 and 9 filed their written statement vide Exh.22 dated 17.10.2012 opposing the case of the plaintiff. The same is duly produced at Annexure-E.
2.6. The facts germane for adjudication of the present dispute, wherein, the application below Exh.104 and 110 came to be rejected are that petitioner herein filed documents below Exh.103 providing for lis
The admissibility of documents and the timing of their proof and reference during trial proceedings.
Procedural rules should not obstruct substantial justice; reasonable cause for non-disclosure of documents must be interpreted liberally to ensure fair adjudication.
The appellate court may only admit additional evidence under specific conditions, which were not met by the petitioners, as they failed to demonstrate due diligence in producing the evidence during t....
Secondary evidence is admissible only when a factual foundation for the non-production of original documents is established, and the trial court must provide a reasoned order for its decisions.
Appellate court cannot admit additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC absent due diligence proof or necessity for judgment; must record reasons; erroneous allowance despite negligence and delay....
A certified copy of a registered sale deed is classified as a public document and admissible as secondary evidence without formal proof under relevant provisions of the Evidence Act.
Documents not mentioned in the plaint cannot be introduced later without court permission, emphasizing the necessity of timely submission under Order VII Rule 14 CPC.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
