Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 253 (JHR)

K. S. Saluja v. Ram Kishore Agarwalla

2006-03-23

N.N.TIWARI

body2006
JUDGMENT Narendra Nath Tiwari, J. I.A. No. 681 of 2006 1. Heard the parties. 2. In this application the petitioner has prayed for addition of prayer for quashing the order dated 07.10.2005 passed by learned Sub Judge VII, Dhanbad whereby he has refused to accept the certified copy of the order of the Sub Divisional Officer in evidence, which is a public document. 3. Learned Counsel for the respondents contested the interlocutory application. 4. On perusal of the application and other record and after hearing the parties, I find that amendment prayed for does not go to change the nature of the writ application and the same is intended to bring on record to avoid multiplicity of legal proceeding and for the ends of justice. 5. Considering the above, this interlocutory application is allowed. Let the writ application be amended as prayed for in the interlocutory application. W.P.(C) No. 273 of 2005 6. Heard the parties. 7. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 01.12.2005 and 07.10.2005. 8. By the first order the learned Court below has refused to allow the amendment in the written statement. The said amendment was prayed for at the stage of final argument. Learned Court below has considered the application and the rejoinder filed by the respondents and has concluded that the said amendment cannot be allowed at that belated stage. I find no illegality in the said order. 9. So far as the order dated 07.10.2005 is concerned, the Court below has refused to accept the certified copy of the order dated 20.07.1992 passed in HRC Case No. 20 of 1992 which is a public document in evidence. Though, it cannot be a ground for admitting a document at this stage, yet, since the said document is of date subsequent to the institution of the suit and the same was not earlier available and the petitioner has brought the said, document to be considered as a subsequent event, the learned Court below should have viewed the same in that light. 10. Mr. P.K. Prasad, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent seriously contested the filing of the said document at this stage on the ground that if the same is allowed, it may open further controversy causing delay in the disposal of the suit. 10. Mr. P.K. Prasad, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent seriously contested the filing of the said document at this stage on the ground that if the same is allowed, it may open further controversy causing delay in the disposal of the suit. Learned Counsel further submitted that the suit is at the final stage and allowing this document as an item of evidence at this stage will cause the respondent loss and harassment. Page 896 11. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has absolutely no intention to delay the disposal of the proceedings of the suit, but since the document is a subsequent event and related to the subject matter of the suit, the petitioner wants to bring the same on record for consideration by the Court the recent relevant development, for the ends of justice. Learned Counsel submitted that he will not bring any further evidence and will not take any adjournment for any other purpose. 12.Considering the above submissions and the controversies involved in the case, this writ application is disposed of by directing the Court below to accept the said certified copy of the order dated 20.07.1992 passed in HRC Case No. 20 of 1991 and mark the same as an exhibit on behalf of the defendant- petitioner in the case. Learned Court below shall not allow any further document or evidence to be brought on record on behalf of the petitioner. However, the plaintiff-respondent shall be at liberty to adduce evidence by way of rebuttal, if it is so required, and for that purpose the Court below may provide sufficient opportunity to the plaintiff. Since the plaintiff has to suffer loss and harassment by the delay caused after the application filed by the defendant- petitioner at the belated stage and further in contesting this writ application, the acceptance of the said document by the Court below shall be subject to payment of cost of Rs. 2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff in the Court below. 13. This writ application is disposed of, accordingly.