Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, original defendants in Regular Civil Suit No.329/2012, challenged an order dated 30.07.2021 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nanded, which allowed the respondents/plaintiffs to examine an additional witness, Mr. Laxman Mohan Mahabale. The suit was filed by the respondents for possession and damages, alleging that a purchase deed re-written on 11.09.1999 was forged and bogus. The petitioners contested the claim. Both parties led oral evidence and filed closure pursis. The matter was posted for arguments when the respondents filed an application (Exhibit-111) for leading additional oral evidence. The petitioners opposed the application. The trial court allowed the application, holding that it was necessary to decide the controversy and to provide a fair opportunity. The petitioners argued that the respondents had protracted the matter for three years, that the impugned order was without jurisdiction as Section 18 or Section 151 CPC could not be invoked, and that the allegations of pressure and threats on the witness were baseless. The High Court, after hearing both sides, found no jurisdictional error or perversity in the impugned order. It held that the power under Section 151 CPC is inherent and can be exercised at any stage to secure fair opportunity and decide the controversy effectively. The court noted that the trial court had exercised its discretion judiciously and that the order did not cause any prejudice to the petitioners. The writ petition was dismissed, and the rule was discharged.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Additional Evidence - Section 151 CPC - Fair Opportunity - The trial court allowed the plaintiffs to examine an additional witness after both sides had closed evidence and the matter was posted for arguments. The defendants challenged this order. The High Court held that the power under Section 151 CPC is inherent and can be exercised at any stage to secure fair opportunity and decide the controversy effectively. The court found no jurisdictional error or perversity in the impugned order. (Paras 2-6) B) Civil Procedure - Inherent Powers - Section 151 CPC - Scope - The court clarified that Section 151 CPC is not a source of substantive power but recognizes the inherent power of the court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice. The trial court's discretion to allow additional evidence was upheld as it aimed at ensuring a fair trial. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in allowing the plaintiffs to examine an additional witness after the closure of evidence and when the matter was posted for arguments.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the trial court's order dated 30.07.2021. The rule was discharged.
Law Points
- Civil Procedure
- Additional Evidence
- Section 151 CPC
- Fair Opportunity
- Discretion of Trial Court
