Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
Rabindra Nath Prasad @ Rabindra Prasad, S/o. Late Ramashish Prasad - Petitioner
Versus
Hira Lal Vishwakarma, S/o. Sukan Vishwakarma - Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 3471 of 2017
Decided On : 05-03-2024
[EVIDENCE] - [ADDUCING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN TRIAL] - [ORDER XVIII RULE 17 C.P.C.] - [The court discussed the provisions of Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allows a court to recall any witness at any stage of a suit. The court emphasized that procedural rules should facilitate justice rather than obstruct it. The trial court's rejection of the defendant's application to adduce additional evidence was deemed erroneous, as it did not consider the relevance of the documents or the defendant's right to present his case adequately. This influenced the court's decision to allow the writ petition and grant the defendant the opportunity to lead evidence.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition to quash part of an order from a trial court that partially rejected his application to introduce additional documentary evidence and recall himself for further examination in an eviction suit. The petitioner argued that the documents were crucial for his defense and that the trial court's rejection was based on an erroneous finding of delay attributed to him.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court had not properly considered the provisions of Order XVIII Rule 17 C.P.C. and had wrongly concluded that the defendant's application was a tactic to delay proceedings. The court held that the defendant should be given a fair opportunity to present his evidence, as the rules of procedure are meant to advance justice.
Issues: Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the defendant's application to adduce additional evidence and recall himself for further examination, and whether the defendant was entitled to a fair opportunity to present his case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that procedural rules, such as those in Order XVIII Rule 17 C.P.C., are designed to ensure justice is served. The trial court's failure to allow the defendant to present additional evidence was a misapplication of these rules, which led to an unjust restriction on the defendant's right to a fair trial.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the trial court was directed to permit the defendant to conclude his evidence within three months, failing which appropriate orders could be passed.
JUDGMENT :
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.
1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the part of the order dated 13.06.2017 passed by learned Additional Munsif-XIII, Ranchi in Title (Eviction) Suit no. 22 of 2005, whereby and whereunder the application of the petitioner / defendant for bringing on record some additional documentary evidence and to recall the D.W.-14, the defendant himself for further examination with a view to prove the aforesaid documents and has been partly rejected.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the impugned order has submitted that the documents, sought to be proved, were not in possession of the petitioner and same was filed in Title Suit No. 71 of 2005, pending between the same parties.
3. It is further submitted that the documents relied upon by the petitioner are important documentary evidence to prove the stand of defendant in eviction suit. Learned court below has recorded an erroneous finding that the application filed by the defendant / petitioner for adducing additional documentary evidence and recall for further examination is motivated with further delay the trial of the case. There is no whisper in the impugned order that at any stage of trial, due to conduct of the petitioner, it has got delayed. Although, the suit was pending since 2005, the respondent / plaintiff himself was responsible for delay.
4. It is further submitted that mere delay, which is beyond the control of the parties, cannot be used as an axe to cut the defence and obstruct to the cause of justice. The learned trial court has not only partially rejected the application of the petitioner / defendant subject to the payment of cost of Rs. 1,000/-, but also closed the avenue of justice forever. Therefore, the impugned order is required to be interfered with and is liable to be quashed and set aside and petitioner may be granted opportunity of leading evidence in his defence, as sought for.
5. Per contra, counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent stating inter alia that the petitioner is habitual of filing frivolous and untenable applications, one after other only to get the said suit lingered and also taking adjournments on frivolous grounds, which led the instant suit pending for more than 12 years. It is very much clear from perusal of the impugned order (Annexure-7) that two applications dated 08.06.2017 and 13.06.2017 were filed on behalf of defendant / petitioner have been disposed of. The application dated 08.06.2017 as contained in Annexure-4 was filed by the defendant / petitioner for recall of D.W.-14 i.e. defendant /petitioner himself, which was rejected on the ground that the plea taken by the petitioner were not based on true statements, rather it was tending to misuse the process of law to delay the disposal of suit, whereas the application dated 13.06.2017 has been partially allowed, even the said application was without merit.
6. It is further submitted that after examination of D.W.-14 / the petitioner, so many adjournments were given and finally he was discharged on 03.06.2017 and the suit was fixed for argument. Another application for recall of defendant for further examination for proving some documents was again filed on 08.06.2017 itself (Annexure-5 to the writ application).
7. It is further alleged that the documents sought for proving in this case are also not relevant and beyond the subject matter of the present eviction proceeding, particularly when the suit for Specific Performance of Contract being Title Suit No. 71 of 2005 is pending between the parties. It is alleged that the agreement for sale proposed to be proved by the defendant / petitioner marked as Exhibit-A & B are forged and fabricated documents and on the strength of those documents, the petitioner cannot claim any right, title and interest in the property.
8. The learned trial court has considered every aspect of the case, particularly the conduct of the defendant in adopting dilatory tactics, has ri
AI
The court reaffirmed that the right to adduce evidence is fundamental to a fair trial, and procedural rules should not obstruct this right but rather facilitate the pursuit of justice.
Procedural rules should facilitate justice; denying a party the opportunity to present evidence obstructs the cause of justice.
The admissibility of additional evidence in appellate courts under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC requires the party to demonstrate due diligence in producing the evidence and that the trial court had refused ....
The court reaffirmed that recall of witnesses is not a right and cannot be used to introduce evidence not previously pleaded.
Timely submission of documents and the requirement for sufficient cause to be shown for their delayed filing are crucial principles in civil procedure.
Evidence recorded during the original trial shall be evidence during the trial after remand, unless otherwise directed by the court in the order of remand.
Power under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC r/w Section 151 to recall witness for additional evidence post-closure is discretionary, not routine; rejected where no due diligence for non-production earlier, mere....
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
