Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, original defendant in a civil suit, challenged the trial court's order rejecting his applications for framing an additional issue and for production of documents. The respondent-plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration of ownership based on a conditional sale deed dated 14 June 1999, claiming that the defendant had sold the suit property for Rs.1,50,000 with a right to repurchase within three years. The defendant contended that the transaction was a money lending transaction and that the plaintiff was a money lender, not an agriculturist. The defendant filed an application under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC to frame an additional issue on whether the plaintiff is an agriculturist, and another application to call upon the plaintiff to produce 7/12 extracts. The trial court rejected both applications. The High Court held that the issue of the plaintiff being an agriculturist is relevant to determine the applicability of the Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1946, and that the court has discretion to frame additional issues at any stage before judgment. The court also held that the 7/12 extracts are relevant documents and should be produced. The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order, and directed the trial court to frame the additional issue and allow the application for production of documents.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Framing of Additional Issues - Order 14 Rule 5 CPC - The court has discretion to frame additional issues at any stage before pronouncement of judgment if necessary for determining the real controversy - Held that the issue of whether the plaintiff is an agriculturist is relevant to decide the applicability of the Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1946 and should be framed (Paras 7-9). B) Evidence Act - Production of Documents - 7/12 Extracts - The defendant sought production of 7/12 extracts to show that the plaintiff is not an agriculturist - Held that such documents are relevant and the application for production should be allowed (Paras 10-11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the application for framing an additional issue regarding the plaintiff's status as an agriculturist, and whether the application for production of 7/12 extracts was wrongly rejected.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order dated 29 June 2022, and directed the trial court to frame the additional issue as proposed and allow the application for production of 7/12 extracts.
Law Points
- Order 14 Rule 5 CPC
- Bombay Money Lenders Act
- 1946
- agriculturist status
- framing of additional issues
- relevance of evidence
