Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
VIJAY BISHNOI, J.
Baheti Education Trust, Through Its President Shri Shyam Baheti S/o Shri Bhawar Lal Ji Baheti – Appellant
Versus
Nemaram S/o Shri Narayan Ram – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15339 of 2022
Decided on : 15-12-2022
Writ Petition - Rebuttal Evidence - Order XVIII Rule 3 CPC - Order XVI Rule 6 CPC - Order VII Rule 14 CPC - Order XI CPC - S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.2037/2020 - Income Tax Department - Benami Transaction - Res Judicata - Additional Evidence
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction seeking cancellation of a sale deed, alleging it to be Benami. The trial court rejected the petitioner's application to summon documents from the Income Tax Department. A Coordinate Bench of the Court set aside the trial court's order and directed the summoning of documents. The petitioner-plaintiff filed an affidavit in rebuttal evidence, which was partly disallowed by the trial court, leading to the filing of this writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the documents sought by the petitioner-plaintiff were relevant and had been allowed by a previous order of the Court. The Court also held that the respondents were barred by the principle of res judicata from objecting to the petitioner-plaintiff's right to lead rebuttal evidence. The Court directed the trial court to treat the additional affidavit as an application to lead additional evidence.
Issues: The issues revolved around the admissibility of rebuttal evidence, the relevance of documents from the Income Tax Department, and the application of procedural rules under Order XVIII Rule 3 CPC, Order XVI Rule 6 CPC, Order VII Rule 14 CPC, and Order XI CPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court's decision was influenced by the principle of res judicata, the relevance of the documents, and the need to ensure that the previous order of the Court was given effect. The Court also emphasized that technicalities of law should be construed to advance justice and not to defeat it.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the petitioner-plaintiff was allowed to lead evidence in respect of the issue. The trial court was directed to treat the additional affidavit as an application to lead additional evidence. The respondents were allowed to cross-examine the petitioner-plaintiff in relation to the additional evidence. No costs were awarded.
Based on the provided legal document, the main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principle of res judicata in the context of allowing rebuttal evidence and the relevance of documents previously allowed by the Court (!) . The Court emphasized that once it has held certain documents to be relevant and permitted their production in rebuttal, the respondents are barred from objecting to their admission on procedural grounds, as such objections would be barred by res judicata (!) (!) .
Furthermore, the Court clarified that the order allowing the petitioner to lead rebuttal evidence and summoning relevant documents from the Income Tax Department is final and has attained finality, reinforcing the principle that prior court orders in the same proceedings are binding (!) . The judgment also underscores that technical objections should not be used to defeat the substantive pursuit of justice, and if the documents are deemed relevant, the trial court should allow their production, possibly as additional evidence, to ensure a fair trial (!) .
In summary, the judgment establishes that prior relevant orders and decisions regarding the admissibility and relevance of evidence must be respected and that procedural technicalities should not prevent the presentation of evidence that is pertinent and previously authorized by the Court (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT :
1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner-plaintiff seeking following reliefs:
a) The rebuttal evidence (Annexure-7) filed by the petitioner may kindly be marked as exhibits and the documents placed therewith be allowed to be admitted in evidence in part D.
b) The order impugned dated 19.9.2022 (Annexure-10) allowing the application filed by the defendant No.2 under Order 18 Rule 3 may kindly be quashed and set aside.
c) That in the alternate and without prejudice to the aforesaid, the Ld. Trial Court be directed to recall the witness of the petitioner so that relevant evidence may be led.
d) Any other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners.
e) Cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction before the District Judge, Jodhpur, which was later on transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge No.5, Jodhpur Metropolitan (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the trial court’) seeking reliefs of cancellation of sale deed executed by the respondent-defendant No.1 in favour of the respondent-defendant No.2 alleging that though the respondent-defendant No.1 executed an agreement on 28.06.2004 for sale of land in question in favour of petitioner-plaintiff but later on he transferred the said land in favour of the respondent-defendant No.2 vide registered sale deed dated 13.05.2005. It was alleged by the petitioner-plaintiff that the said transfer of land by the respondent-defendant No.1 in favour of respondent-defendant No.2 is Benami, therefore, the same be cancelled.
3. The respondent-defendants contested the suit denying the allegations that the transaction is Benami. On the basis of the pleadings of the party, the trial court framed as many as 13 issues, however, later on, one additional issue was framed and one issue was amended. The evidence of the parties was concluded and opportunity was awarded to the petitioner-plaintiff to lead rebuttal evidence. At this stage, the petitioner-plaintiff filed an application under Order XVI Rule 6 CPC with a prayer for summoning certain documents from the Income Tax Department pertaining to the proceedings initiated against respondent-defendant No.3, wherein the Income Tax Department has concluded that the sale deed executed by the respondent-defendant No.1 in favour of respondent-defendant No.2 is Benami and thereafter order of attachment of the property has also been passed by the Income Tax Authority. The said application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff came to be dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 03.02.2020 while observing that those documents are not at all relevant.
4. Being aggrieved with the order dated 03.02.2020, the petitioner-plaintiff preferred S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.2037/2020 before this Court and a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.02.2020 while allowing the said writ petition has set aside the order dated 03.02.2020 passed by the trial court and also ordered for allowing the application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under Order XVI Rule 6 CPC with further direction to the trial court to summon the documents/record as prayed by the petitioner-plaintiff in its application under Order XVI Rule 6 CPC from the Office of Deputy Commissioner, Income Tax Department, Jaipur. Pursuant to the order dated 13.02.2020 passed by this Court, the said documents were summoned by the trial court and at this stage, the petitioner-plaintiff filed an affidavit in rebuttal evidence on 27.01.2021 exhibiting the documents so summoned from the Income Tax Department. The respondent-def
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principle of res judicata in the context of allowing rebuttal evidence and the relevance of documents previously allowed by ....
Rebuttal evidence may be presented even after closure of evidence if necessary to ensure fairness and justice in legal proceedings.
A party's right to lead rebuttal evidence is forfeited if not reserved before the opposing party begins their evidence, as per Order 18 Rule 3 CPC.
Rebuttal evidence cannot be used to fill gaps in a party's evidence; it must address issues where the burden of proof lies with the other party.
A party in a civil suit has the right to lead rebuttal evidence on issues where the burden of proof lies on the opposing party, even if the party has the burden of proof on other issues.
A plaintiff cannot lead evidence in rebuttal as a matter of right on an issue the onus of which is on a defendant, and must reserve the right to do so when his evidence is closed.
The court has the discretion to allow a party to lead additional evidence in the interest of justice, subject to conditions and costs, even after the conclusion of the evidence and before the final a....
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
