Back
PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
Rabindra Nath Prasad @ Rabindra Prasad, S/o. Late Ramashish Prasad – Appellant
Versus
Hira Lal Vishwakarma, S/o. Sukan Vishwakarma – Respondent
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 a
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
