Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 44 (JHR)

Anil Kumar Chourasia v. Prabha Devi

2010-01-07

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2010
JUDGMENT D.G.R. Patnaik, J. 1. It appears from the office report, notices issued upon Respondent Nos. 2 & 4 have been received by them. Respondent Nos. 1 & 3 have appeared through lawyer, who submits that Respondent Nos. 1 & 3 do not need to file any counter affidavit. Despite repeated calls, none appears to represent Respondent Nos. 2 & 4. 2. Heard Counsel for the parties. 3. The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for quashing the order dated 13.02.2007 passed by Sub-Judge-III, Rajmahal in Title Suit No. 39 of 1995, whereby the petitioner's prayer under Order VII Rule 14 of the C.P.C. for allowing him to introduce in evidence, the certified copy of the order passed in a 144 Cr.P.C. proceeding between the parties, has been rejected. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned court below, by rejecting the petitioner's prayer, has acted illegally and against the provisions of law, without appreciating the facts of the case. Learned Counsel explains that as a matter of fact, the document only confirms certain facts which had transpired between the parties and though the same was within the knowledge of the petitioner, who, as a plaintiff, had filed the suit but the plaintiff/petitioner had never expected the factual position, would be denied by the respondents/defendants. The need to introduce the said document arose when to the petitioner's surprise, the witness examined by the defendants/Respondents, had refused to acknowledge the factual position relating to the order passed in a 144 Cr.P.C. proceeding and, therefore, the petitioner had felt it necessity not only to impeach the credit of the witness but also to bring the factual matter on record. 5. Learned Counsel further submits that the defendants could not have suffered any prejudice, by introduction of the documents, as under the law they are entitled to file additional statements in respect of the documents introduced. 6. Learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the document was all along in the possession of the plaintiff/petitioner, but he did not file the same at any time, either along with the plaint or before the commencement of the trial. 6. Learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the document was all along in the possession of the plaintiff/petitioner, but he did not file the same at any time, either along with the plaint or before the commencement of the trial. Learned Counsel adds further that even, as indicated in the impugned order, the trial has substantively progressed and it is now pending for final arguments and if the documents is allowed to be introduced at this stage, it will only linger the proceeding. 7. Having heard counsel for the parties and having gone through the records as also the impugned order, I find that the court below has refused to accept the petitioner's prayer, on the ground that it is belated. It appears that the learned court below has not appreciated the facts and circumstances under which the petitioner could not file the document nor pray for its introduction at an earlier point of time, prior to the date when the witness for defendant was examined. 8. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, the impugned order of the court below is hereby set aside. The learned court below shall allow the petitioner to introduce the document, as prayed for, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall pay cost of Rs. 1,000/- and after giving the defendants a reasonable opportunity to rebut the document and the facts stated thereby, shall dispose of the suit within a period of three months from the date of this order. Both the parties shall assist the court for expeditious disposal of the suit within the period stipulated. 9. This application is disposed of accordingly.