IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MITALI THAKURIA, J.
Varun Beverages Limited – Appellant
Versus
M/S Bakskish Enterprises And Anr – Respondent
CRP(IO) 252 of 2022
Decided on : 25-08-2023
Constitution of India,1950 – Article 227 - Code of Civil Procedure,1908 - Section 151 – Order VIII Rule 1– A(3) – Order 22 Rule 10 – Companies Act, 1956 – Company amalgamation – Money suit – Praying for granting leave for filing the documents – Revision petition against Order – It is submitted that learned Court below has rejected prayer for production of document Nos. 7 to 15 without considering entire aspects of case and arbitrarily rejected same and order passed by learned Court below is liable to be set aside. Para 10
Finding of Court : It is a fact that petition seeking leave to produce documents is submitted after closure of plaintiff evidence, but from the discussion made above, it cannot be denied that the order for substitution was passed only after closure of plaintiff evidence and hence, it is not only that defendant remain silent about those documents, but documents have to be relied by defendant/petitioner for subsequent development of substitution in this case – Court find that document Nos. 7 to 15 should be allowed to bring on evidence and respondents/plaintiffs will get the opportunity to cross– examine witnesses of defendant and thus, no prejudice will be caused to plaintiffs even if those documents are brought in evidence at time of adducing D.Ws.
Result : Petition allowed
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. B. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. P. Roy, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. This civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the Order dated 06.07.2022, passed by learned Civil Judge No. 1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, in Money Suit No. 65/2002, whereby, the Petition No. 2851/2019 praying for granting leave for filing the documents was partly rejected, which was filed by the present petitioner/defendant under Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) readwithSection 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner/defendant is a Company registered under Companies Act, 1956, having its registered Office at F-2/7 Okhla Industrial Area, Phase – I, New Delhi, and the respondent/plaintiff No. 1 is a partnership firm, of which the respondent/plaintiff No.2 is the proprietor. The respondent, as a plaintiff, instituted a money suit against the present petitioner/defendant, which was numbered as M.S. No. 65/2002 and pending before the Court of learned Civil Judge, No. 1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, against M/S North East Pure Drinks Private Ltd., the original defendant No. 1, which was merged with M/S Varun Beverages (International) Limited in the year 2011, whereas M/S Varun Beverages (International) Limited was amalgamated with M/S Varun Beverages Limited. The respondents, as plaintiffs, on getting information about the aforesaid amalgamation and devotion of interest, filed an application under Order 22 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for substitution and accordingly, the name of the present petitioner was substituted in place of the original defendant No. 1, vide order dated 05.05.2018, passed by the learned Trial Court in M.S. No. 65/2002.
4. After the said substitution, the present petitioner filed a petition on 25.06.2019, which was numbered as Petition No. 2851, under order VIII Rule 1A (3) readwithSection 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for granting leave to file documents so as to receive the same in evidence. After substitution of the name of the petitioner, it has come to the notice of the petitioner that the document Nos. 1 to 6 (as stated in the petition) were already filed before the learned Trial Court by the original defendants on 04.10.2007. While filing those documents, the leave was also not obtained by the original defendants under Order VIII Rule 1-A (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The document Nos. 1 to 6 could not be filed earlier since the same were not traceable and necessary leave also could not be obtained by the original defendant due to inadvertence and bonafide mistake of the earlier engaged counsel.
5. After the amalgamation of original defendant No. 1 with the present petitioner and due to change of management, it has become necessary to give fresh authority to the representatives of the present petitioner for doing needful in the present case, including authority to give evidence either oral or by way of affidavit on behalf of the present petitioner. Hence, it has become necessary to file document Nos. 7 to 15, i.e. authority letters, identity cards, board resolution dated 12.05.2017 and specific power of attorney dated 15.05.2017 etc. Further it is stated that the document Nos. 7 to 15 have arisen only due to subsequent event, more particularly, due to substitution of the original defendant No. 1 by the present petitioner under the circumstances stated above.
6. The document Nos. 13, 14 & 15 in the list are only the certified copies of Form 32, dated 24.06.2000, dated 21.08.2000, & dated 14.11.2000, which are only the substitute of the document Nos. 3, 4 & 5 as the original or the certified copy could not be filed earlier at the time of filing those document Nos. 3, 4 & 5, which were already accepted by the Court. Moro so, after a long enquiry, it has come to the knowledge that the original old records of Registrar of Companies, North East Region, Shillong, were transferred to the R
BGC International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shree Mallikarjun Shipping Office
Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes & ors. Vs. Erasmo Jack De Sequeria
Monawar Hussain Vs. Manoranjan Das
SupremeToday
Point of Law : There cannot be any bar to accept the certified copies of the documents which were earlier accepted by the Court even in absence of any leave petition.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court may not permit the filing of additional documents at a belated stage if it would only protract the case, as established by the princ....
Procedural rules should not obstruct substantial justice; reasonable cause for non-disclosure of documents must be interpreted liberally to ensure fair adjudication.
Timely submission of documents and the requirement for sufficient cause to be shown for their delayed filing are crucial principles in civil procedure.
Order XI Rule 1(4) and Order XI Rule 1(5) applicable to the commercial suit shall be applicable only with respect to the documents which were in plaintiff’s power, possession, control or custody and ....
The court established that procedural delays should not prevent the introduction of relevant evidence, prioritizing substantial justice.
Inherent powers under Section 151 CPC may be invoked to admit additional evidence in interlocutory proceedings if the evidence is relevant to the controversy, assists in the ends of justice, and does....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.