IMPORTANT POINT
Partition suit – Rejection of application for recall of orders – Merely because a party has not raised objection with regard to mode of its proof, it does not mean that he has admitted content of document and has no right to rebut the same.

JUDGMENT

Petitioner is the plaintiff in Original Suit No.368 of 2018 claiming partition in the joint family property for the share of her husband-Delip Jerath (since dead). Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 04.11.2025 by which petition under Order VII Rule 14 read with Section 151 of the CPC dated 17.10.2025 and the petition under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC dated 18.10.2025 to recall the orders dated 09.09.2025 and 19.09.2025, has been rejected.

2. After the plaintiff’s evidence was closed and the case was posted for evidence, the documents have been brought on record and adduced into evidence which were not originally filed with the written statement in terms of Order VIII Rule 1A of the CPC. Petitioner is mainly aggrieved from being denied opportunity to lead evidence in rebuttal to the documents which had been filed on behalf of the defendants vide petition under Order VIII Rule IA (3) of the CPC on 22.09.2025 and 08.10.2025, total ten in numbers.

2. It is contended that once the learned trial Court has permitted the defendants to lead these documents as evidence which were not originally filed with the written statement. The plaintiff had a right to rebut those evidences for which a petition was filed before the learned trial Court and has been rejected by invoking Order VII Rule 14 of the CPC. It is argued that this petition to lead evidence in rebuttal is not under Order VII Rule 14 of the CPC rather it is under Section 151 of the CPC, therefore, order passed by the learned trial Court is not sustainable.

3. Mr. Rajendra Krishna, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties/defendants submits that all these documents have been marked on behalf of the defendants into exhibit with out objection. Therefore, it cannot be said that the defendants have been taken by surprise by these documents. It is further submitted that at least on seven occasions, the plaintiff has been permitted to bring into evidence the documents, and therefore, the mandate of due diligence has not been satisfied while pressing the instant petition for leading further evidence.

4. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides, at the outset, it may be noted that there is a difference in objection to mode of proof and that with regard to its admissibility. While the objection with regard to the former if not raised at the time of its proof, the same cannot be raised at a subsequent stage. The same does not apply with regard to its admissibility or effect of the said document marked as proved without objection. Merely because a party has not raised an objection with regard to mode of its proof, it does not mean that he has admitted the content of the document and has no right to rebut the same.

5. In view of the fact that ten documents which were not filed along with the original written statement, have been adduced into evidence with the leave of the Court, therefore, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has a right of rebuttal. This does not however imply that under garb of right of rebuttal, it will have an unlimited right to lead evidence.

Under the circumstance, impugned order is set aside.

Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed subject to the condition that the plaintiff/petitioner will lead the evidence in rebuttal to the aforesaid eleven documents led on behalf of the defendants within two dates i.e.11th and 12th December, 2025. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of.