Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1296 (MAD)

Dr. P. R. Govindarajulu v. Srinivasa Vyas

2002-10-25

A.KULASEKARAN

body2002
Judgment :- The Plaintiff in O.S. No. 5450 of 1996 is the revision petitioner in both the petitions, who has filed petitions before the court below in I.A. No. 7517 to permit the Petitioner / Plaintiff to recall himself i.e., PW1 and to let in further evidence and I.A. No. 7518 of 2002 to re-open the evidence of plaintiff. Both the petitions were dismissed by the court below, hence the present revision petitions. 2. The facts of the case is that after completion of the plaintiff's side evidence, the respondent/defendant has filed a petition in I.A. No. 5963 of 2002 for filing 17 documents and the same was allowed as the petitioner herein has not opposed. Subsequently, the petitioner herein has filed the above said two applications in I.A. Nos. 7517 and 7518 of 2002 which were dismissed on the main ground that they were filed to speak about the documents of the defendant which are yet to be marked. 3. Mr. Natanasabapathy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner herein has filed a petition under Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC read with Section 151 of C.P.C., but the trial court erred in holding that the said petitions were filed under Section 151 of C.P.C; that under Order 13 of C.P.C all the documents should should have been filed prior to the commencement of trial, whereas, in this case, the respondent has filed the documents after closing of the evidence by the plaintiff with the result the petitioner could not speak about the validity and veracity of the said documents, hence the said two petitions were filed and dismissal of the same caused great prejudice to the petitioner; that even an opportunity is afforded later it would not cure the illegality; and that the defendant could take a plea that the petitioner's stand in respect of the said documents as later thought and prayed for setting aside the orders of dismissal dated 17-06-2002. 4. Mr. 4. Mr. Subaidas, learned counsel appearing for the respondent argued that at the time of filing the documents, the petitioner herein has not opposed the same; that the learned Judge has rightly held that opportunity would be afforded to the petitioner for cross-examination in respect of the documents at the time of marking the same; that the learned judge has also further held in its order that if necessary, the petitioner would be given opportunity to recall himself for explaining any adverse factors as such, the order passed by the learned judge is valid and prayed for dismissal of the revisions. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the counsel for parties. It is true that under Order 13 of C.P.C. the parties or their pleader shall produce all the documentary evidence at or before settlement of issues. No documentary evidence shall be received at any subsequent stage unless good cause is shown to the satisfaction of the Court. The object of the said Rule is not to penalise the parties but to prevent suspicious documents coming in. The court shall be aware that inherent powers vested on it to admit into evidence any document only to achieve the ends of justice. However, in this case, when the documents were filed filed by the respondent, the petitioner herein has not opposed the same, the reason could be that almost in all the documents petitioner herein is a party. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the documents were filed only after completion of the evidence of the plaintiff and the petitioner was not afforded opportunity to depose the facts relating to the said documents at the time of his examination. Once the documents are received by the Court, by condoning the delay, the stage of the case does not get any significance, but an opportunity should be given to the other side to lead evidence in rebuttal. 6. The trial court wrongly mentioned that the petitions were filed under Section 151 of CPC alone, indeed Order 18 Rule 17 were also invoked. The trial court, after considering the submissions of both sides has rightly held that the defendant is yet to open his case, the documents filed later are not at all marked till date and admissibility and relevancy of the documents are to be considered. The trial court, after considering the submissions of both sides has rightly held that the defendant is yet to open his case, the documents filed later are not at all marked till date and admissibility and relevancy of the documents are to be considered. It is also further held by the trial court that the petitioner would be afforded opportunity to cross-examine the defendant at the time of marking and if necessary to recall him to explain the adverse factors, if any. 7. The petitions filed before the trial court are premature. The only apprehension of the petitioner is that the defendant could take a plea that his defence as one of after-thought, which is nothing but a stretch of imagination, since the documents were filed after the completion of the examination of the plaintiff and it is not open to the defendant to take such a plea. The learned judge has given cogent and convincing reasons for dismissing the petitions. Moreover, no prejudice will be caused to the plaintiff due to dismissal of the petitions, in any manner. 8. The court may at any stage of a suit recall any witness who has been examined under Order 18 Rule 17. The right to act under this Rule is not restricted to the Court, but can be exercised at the instance of the party. Hence, the petitioner is at liberty to file similar applications, if he is so advised after the examination of the defendant witness or witnesses, which was also observed by the trial court in the impugned order. With the result, the revision petitions fail, liable to be dismissed and accordingly they are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Crl.MP is also closed.