Back
2018 Supreme(All) 1214
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Sudhir Agarwal, Neeraj Tiwari, JJ.
Sheela Srivastava – Appellant
Versus
Sri Purushottam Das Gupta – Respondent
First Appeal No. 620 of 2004
Decided On : 12-02-2018
For the Appellants : Devansh Rathore and Shailly Saxena.
For the Respondent: G.K. Gupta.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of strict adherence to procedural rules for admitting documents as evidence and the consequences of non-admission of documents as evidence.
Headnote:
CPC - Limitation of Suit - 96 - 122 - 227 - GR (C) 1957 - Order XIII - Order VII Rule 14 - Order VIII Rule 1A - Main Legal Point
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a suit for refund/recovery of money, which was challenged on the grounds of limitation. The appellant relied on an alleged acknowledgment dated 27.09.1992, which was not admitted as evidence and was rejected by the court below.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the procedural aspects of filing and exhibiting documentary evidence under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) and General Rules (Civil), 1957 (GR (C) 1957). The court emphasized the importance of strict adherence to the procedure for admitting documents as evidence and highlighted the rejection of the alleged acknowledgment as it was not exhibited and admitted as evidence.
Issues: The issues raised in the appeal were whether the alleged acknowledgment could be treated as evidence for deciding the issue of limitation and whether the suit was barred by limitation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the significance of following the procedural rules for admitting documents as evidence and highlighted the rejection of the alleged acknowledgment due to non-admission as evidence. The court also discussed the relevance of the suit being barred by limitation.
Final Decision: The court found the appeal lacking in merit and dismissed it.
1. Heard Sri Aditya Singh holding brief of Sri Devansh Rathore, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Narendra Mohan, learned counsel for proposed respondent.
2. This appeal under section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "CPC") has arisen from judgment and decree dated 9.3.2014 passed by Sri Vigyan Ram Mishra, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 11, Varanasi in Original Suit No. 801 of 1995.
3. The question raised in this appeal is, whether, suit instituted by the appellant for refund of money/recovery of money was within limitation. Admittedly, loan was advanced on 04.10.1989 while suit was filed by plaintiff dated 22.08.1995. Learned counsel for appellant placed reliance on an alleged acknowledgement dated 27.09.1992, which is said to have been executed by Purshottam defendant-respondent but it could not dispute that aforesaid document was never admitted as evidence and on the contrary it was rejected by court below.
4. Points for determination arisen in this appeal are:
(i) Whether alleged acknowledgment dated 27.09.1992, which was not admitted as evidence could be treated to be an evidence for the purpose of deciding issue of limitation;
(ii) Whether suit in question was barred by limitation as held by Court below.
5. In order to answer question no. 1, we find that a detailed procedure has been provided in Code of Civil Procedure as also General Rules (Civil), 1957 (hereinafter referred to as GR (C) 1957) applicable to subordinate Courts in State of U.P. with respect of the procedure to be followed in Civil Matters for exhibiting documentary evidence.
6. Procedure of filing suits and manner in which the same are to be tried and further provisions of appeal, revision etc. are broadly governed by CPC, a statute enacted by Central Legislation. Since District Courts are subordinate to High Court and procedural aspects can also be monitored by High Court under Section 122 C.P.C. hence power has also been given to High Court to frame Rules regulating procedure of Civil Courts subject to superintendence and by such rules annul, alter or add to all or any of the rules in the first schedule which contains various provisions, divided in 52 orders.
7. In exercise of supervisory powers under Article 227 of Constitution of India read with Section 122 CPC, GR (C) 1957 have been notified in super-session of all existing Rules on the subject. These Rules have 28 Chapters dealing with different aspects of procedure to be followed not only in trial of civil suits etc. but also tell subordinate Courts, manner of maintenance of record of various proceedings and other administrative aspects.
8. Chapter III is one of the most important Chapter which deals with procedure of institution of suit, as to how it shall proceed. It also deals with appeals in general. Chapter III is sub-divided in nine parts, i.e. from (A) to (I).
9. Part (A) deals with parties to the proceedings; (B) with applications and pleadings; (C) with Documents; (D) Commissions; (E) Affidavits; (F) Adjournments; (G) Hearing of suit; (H) Transfer or withdrawal of cases and (I) Judgment and decree.
10. For the purpose of present matter, we are confining our discussion with respect to documents which were filed in Trial Court, as to how they would have dealt with, proceeded and exhibited for the purpose of deciding suit. Relevant rules in this regard are Rules 40 to 64 in Part C, Chapter III and the same have to be read with Order XIII CPC.
11. Order XIII deals with production, impounding and return of documents. Rule 1 thereof as it stands today, substituted by CPC Amendment Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as "Amendment Act, 1999") w. e. f. 01.07.2002. Earlier Rule 1 reads as under:-
"1. Documentary evidence to be produced at or before the settlement of issues:
(1) The parties or their pleaders shall produce, at or before the settlement of issues all the documentary evidence of every description in their possession or power, on which they int
