Back
2005 Supreme(HP) 446
High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
V.M.JAIN
LAL CHAND RAM KRISHAN - Appellant
Versus
RAJESH THAKUR - Respondent
CMPMO No. 288 of 2005
Decided On : 12/16/2005
S/Sh. Rakesh Manta, and Parmod Kumar Bajaj, Advocates.
The omission of specific provisions for the production of documents under Order 18 Rule 17-A CPC influenced the court's decision to dismiss the defendant's application.
Headnote:
Order 18 Rule 17 CPC - Application for permission to produce a document and to prove the same - Order 18 Rule 17 CPC
Fact of the Case:
The defendant filed a petition challenging the trial court's order dismissing the application to produce a document and prove it. The plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery against the defendant, and various issues were framed. The defendant sought permission to place a document on record and summon witnesses for proving the document. The trial court dismissed the application, leading to the defendant's petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the defendant's application under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC was not maintainable as the document sought to be produced was not on record at the time of the application. The court also held that the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17-A CPC, which allowed the production of documents, had been omitted from the Code of Civil Procedure.
Issues: The main issue was whether the defendant's application under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC should have been allowed by the trial court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the production of the document could not be allowed as the specific provisions for such production were omitted from the Code of Civil Procedure. The court also emphasized that the defendant had not made a specific prayer for summoning witnesses for proving the document.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the defendant's petition, finding no merit in the challenge against the trial court's order.
V.M. Jain, J. :- This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the defendant-petitioner, challenging the order dated 3.12.2005 passed by the trial Court, dismissing the application of the defendant- petitioner filed under Order 18 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC, for permission to produce a document and to prove the same.
2. The facts, which are relevant for the decision of the present petition are that the plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of Rs.1,08,904/- along with future interest etc. against the defendant. The said suit was contested by the defendant by filing written statement. Various issues were framed. The plaintiff produced evidence in support of his case. Thereafter, the case was filed for defendants evidence. When the case was still at the stage of defendants evidence, an application dated 3.6.2005 under Order 18 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC was filed on behalf of the defendant for permission to place on the record bilty No. 414 for the proper adjudication of the case with a further prayer to summon the plaintiff and Nand Lal for proving the said document. The said application was contested by the plaintiff by filing a reply taking up various preliminary objections, including the maintainability of the said application.
3. After hearing both sides and perusing the record, the learned, trial Court dismissed the aforesaid application, vide order dated 3.12.2005. Aggrieved against the same the defendant filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in this Court. 4.1 have heard the learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner and have gone through the record carefully.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted before me that the learned trial Court ought to have allowed the application under order 18 Rule 17 CPC. However, I find no force in this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. As referred to above, in the application under Order 18 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC, it was alleged on behalf of the defendant-petitioner that inadvertently bilty No. 414 could not be filed before the Court and that the said document is very important for the proper adjudication of the case. It was accordingly prayed that the Court may allow the said bilty to be placed on the record for the proper adjudication of the case and that the plaintiff and Shri Nand Lal be summoned for proving the said document.
7. From a perusal of the above, it would be clear that the defendant -petitioner was not only seeking permission to place on record bilty No.414 but was also seeking permission to summon the plaintiff and one Nand Lal for proving the said Document. Under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC, the Court at any stage of the suit, is empowered to re-call any witness who had been examined and may put such question to him as the Court may think fit. Thus, from a perusal of the order 18 Rule 17 CPC it will be clear that while exercising the power under Order 118 Rule 17 CPC, the Court is competent to recall any witness who had already been examined and he may be put such questions as the Court may think fit. By virtue of the law laid down by a Division Bench of Delhi High Court, in the case of National Agro Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. National research Development Corporation 118(2005) Delhi Law Times 653 (DB), it may be said that the examination, includes cross-examination as well and thus it can be said that when a witness has been examined the Court at any stage of the suit, may re-call said witness for the purpose of examination which includes cross-examination. However, so far as the production of document is concerned, in my opinion, the said document having not been produced on the record, the same cold not be allowed to be produced especially when the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17-A CPC were omitted by virtue of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002, which had come into force w. e. f. 1.7.2002. Thus, the production of t
