Back
2016 Supreme(Sikk) 16
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM
S.K. Agnihotri, J.
Himalaya Distilleries - Appellant
Vs.
Commandant, Morigoan and Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) No. 22 of 2016
Decided On : 07-10-2016
For the Appellant : K.T. Bhutia, Senior Adv., Bandana Pradhan and Sarita Bhusal.
For the Respondents: Karma Thinlay, Central Govt. Adv., Thinlay Dorjee Bhutia, A. Moulik, Sr. Adv., Kessang D. Bhutia and Ranjit Prasad.
The application for exhibiting documents filed along with evidence on affidavit, but not exhibited due to lack of proper care by the advocate, is permissible and should be allowed in the interest of justice.
Headnote:
Section 153 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Fresh Documents - The court held that the application for exhibiting documents that were filed along with evidence on affidavit, but could not be exhibited due to lack of proper care by the advocate, is permissible and should be allowed in the interest of justice, despite the objection raised by the defendants.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a Money Suit and sought to exhibit documents that were filed along with evidence on affidavit but could not be exhibited due to the advocate's lack of proper care. The trial court declined the application, stating that exhibiting the documents would amount to permitting filing of fresh documents, which is not legally permissible.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the documents were filed with evidence on affidavit but could not be exhibited due to the advocate's lack of proper care. The objection raised by the defendants was deemed technical and not in the interest of justice. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the trial court to examine and exhibit the documents in accordance with the law.
Issues: The main issue was whether the application for exhibiting documents that were filed along with evidence on affidavit, but could not be exhibited, was permissible under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the application for exhibiting documents that were filed along with evidence on affidavit, but could not be exhibited due to lack of proper care by the advocate, is permissible and should be allowed in the interest of justice, despite the objection raised by the defendants.
Final Decision: The impugned order declining to exhibit the documents was set aside, and the trial court was directed to examine and exhibit the documents in accordance with the law before proceeding with the trial of the case.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
-
The court emphasized that an application to exhibit documents filed along with evidence on affidavit, which were not exhibited due to oversight or lack of proper care by the advocate, is permissible and should be allowed in the interest of justice (!) .
-
The trial court's decision to decline the exhibition of such documents was challenged, and the appellate court found that the omission was due to inadvertence rather than any procedural bar, and that the objections raised by the opposing party were technical and not in the interest of justice (!) .
-
The appellate court set aside the order declining to exhibit the documents and directed the trial court to examine and exhibit the relevant documents in accordance with law before proceeding with the trial (!) .
-
The case involved a petitioner who filed a money suit and sought to exhibit documents that were filed along with evidence on affidavit but could not be exhibited due to the withdrawal of the advocate, which was recognized as an oversight (!) .
-
The court highlighted that the purpose of allowing the exhibition of such documents is to serve the interest of justice, rather than to penalize procedural oversights, and that technical objections should not prevent the fair administration of justice (!) .
-
The final order was to allow the writ petition, set aside the previous order of non-exhibition, and direct the trial court to examine and exhibit the documents already on record (!) .
-
The decision underscores the importance of ensuring that procedural technicalities do not hinder the substantive pursuit of justice when the documents are already part of the record but were not properly exhibited due to inadvertence (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or assistance with this case.
S.K. Agnihotri, J.
1. The instant writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed questioning the correctness of a part of the impugned order dated 7-4-2016 passed by the District Judge, Special Division-II, East Sikkim at Gangtok in Money Suit No. 18 of 2015 between the parties, whereunder it was held that the petitioner seeking to file fresh documents is not permissible by way of application under Section 153 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the CPC, 1908'). The petitioner preferred a Money Suit No. 18 of 2015. According to the petitioner, the petitioner filed necessary relevant documents along with filing of evidence on affidavit, but the same could not be exhibited by the earlier counsel, who withdrew from the case, thereafter. On finding the shortcomings on the part of the counsel, the petitioner filed an application under Section 153 read with Section 151 of the CPC for correction of the cause title and also for exhibiting the documents, which were filed earlier, but could not be exhibited. In reply, the defendants/respondents submitted that the exhibition of such documents is tantamount to filing of fresh documents, which is not permissible under the provisions of Section 153 read with Section 151 of the CPC, 1908. The documents could not be exhibited as they were not filed before-hand.
2. The trial Judge, having examined the relevant documents, came to hold that the documents were not exhibited not on account of inadvertence and oversight, but the petitioner/plaintiff had chosen not to file the documents in question on filing of evidence on affidavit. It is further held that exhibiting such documents would amount to permitting filing of fresh documents, which is not legally permissible in the application.
3. I have examined all the documents as well as the application carefully.
4. The finding of the trial Court is not correct and erroneous. It has come on the record that the relevant documents were filed with evidence on affidavit, but could not be exhibited on account of lack of proper care by the Advocate, who withdrew later from the case. The petitioner has rightly sought for exhibiting the said documents which were left un-exhibited at the proper time. The objection put forth by the defendants/respondents was technical which hampers the administration of justice. The documents were already on record and as such the same are required to be exhibited and examined. The learned Judge ought to have allowed the application for exhibiting the same with notice to other side in the interest of justice. The purpose is to sub serve the justice, not to be influenced by technicality, without examining all the facts carefully.
5. Consequently, the impugned order dated 7-4-2016 to the extent of declining to exhibit the said documents is set aside. The trial Court is directed to examine the documents which were already on record and exhibit the same in accordance with law before proceeding with the trial of the case.
6. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. No order as to costs.
