Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 2119 (PNJ)

Guru Nanak Trading Company v. Jagtar Singh

2008-12-15

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH

body2008
JUDGMENT Augustine George Masih, J.:- This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for setting aside the order dated 12.06.2006 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rajpura, in a suit, which has been preferred by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 5,25,000/- with interest. 2. It is the contention of the petitioner that the rebuttal evidence was not allowed by the court, wherein the petitioner has sought to produce the registration certificate of the petitioner-Firm. Thereafter, an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was moved for tendering the certificate of registration of the Firm in evidence. The said application having been rejected by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rajpura, vide order dated 12.06.2006, the petitioner has approached this Court impugning the said order. 3. It the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents in case the document i.e. the certificate of registration of the Firm is allowed to be tendered in evidence before the trial court. She submits that due to mistake and inadvertence on the part of the counsel for the petitioner, the copy of the registration certificate could not be produced before the court, which, is a bona fide mistake on the part of the petitioner and, therefore, for the just and equitable decision of the case, the said document could have been permitted to be taken on record by way of an application moved under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 4. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents submits that in the garb of provisions under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioner cannot be permitted to by pass the specific provisions, which have been provided under the Code of Civil Procedure as the case of the petitioner would be covered under the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17 A of the Code of Civil Procedure for producing additional evidence. She submits that after the rebuttal evidence was rejected by the court, the remedy available to the petitioner was to move an application under Order 18 Rule 17-A for production of additional evidence, which has been omitted by the petitioner and that too for the obvious reasons that it would not fall within the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure as to when the said additional evidence is taken on record. She submits that it is not a case on the part of the petitioner that despite of due diligence, the petitioner was not able to produce the said certificate on record nor is it the case of the petitioner that the said certificate was not within the knowledge of the petitioner, which is now sought to be produced before the trial court as an additional evidence. She submits that the order rejecting the production of the rebuttal evidence also has attained finality as the same has not been challenged by the petitioner. Having done so, a circuitous route cannot be taken by the petitioner to by pass the specific provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. On this basis, she submits that the order passed by the trial court is in accordance with law and, therefore, deserves to be upheld. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and am of the view that the submissions, as made by the counsel for the respondents, deserve to be accepted. The basic document, as far as the petitioner is concerned, which would establish its legality and existence, is the certificate of registration of the Firm. The primary document, which was required to be produced at the very outset having been omitted and after the evidence of both the parties stands closed and specially when the rebuttal evidence of the plaintiff has also been closed, the petitioner cannot be permitted now to file an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for tendering the certificate of registration of the Firm in evidence. The option open to the petitioner having not been exercised and that too for the obvious reasons as the provisions thereof would not permit the same, they cannot be allowed to make use of the provisions of Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to intend and do what they cannot under the provisions, which the Code of Civil Procedure prescribes. 6. I have gone through the impugned order dated 12.06.2006 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rajpura and do not find any illegality in the same. That being so, finding no merit in this petition, dismiss the same. ---------------- Kamal Kumar v. P.S.E.B.