Case Note & Summary
The judgment arises from a property dispute between the Plaintiffs (Jitendra Velji Faria and another) and the Defendants, including the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and M/s. Lotus Grih Nirman Pvt. Ltd. (the Developer). The Plaintiffs had filed L.C. Suit No.1440 of 2011 concerning redevelopment of a property. During the trial, after the suit was part-heard, the Plaintiffs filed Notice of Motion No.2398 of 2016 seeking recall of their expert witness (PW-2) to exhibit additional documents, and Chamber Summons No.1512 of 2018 seeking amendment of the plaint to bring subsequent events on record. The Trial Court dismissed both applications by reasoned orders dated 31.07.2018 and 24.06.2019 respectively. The Plaintiffs challenged these orders by way of Civil Revision Application No.574 of 2018 and Writ Petition No.12569 of 2019. The High Court, after hearing the parties, held that the Trial Court had exercised its discretion judiciously. Regarding the recall of witness, the Court noted that the Plaintiffs had ample opportunity to produce the documents earlier and the application was filed belatedly. Regarding the amendment, the Court found that the proposed amendment would change the nature of the suit and the Plaintiffs had not shown due diligence. The High Court dismissed both the revision and the writ petition, upholding the Trial Court's orders.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Recall of Witness - Additional Evidence - Order 18 Rule 17 CPC - The Plaintiffs sought recall of their expert witness (PW-2) to exhibit additional documents. The Trial Court dismissed the application as the Plaintiffs had ample opportunity to produce evidence earlier and the application was filed after the suit was part-heard. The High Court held that no jurisdictional error or material irregularity was committed by the Trial Court in exercising its discretion. (Paras 3, 6, 10-12) B) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Plaint - Subsequent Events - Order 6 Rule 17 CPC - The Plaintiffs sought amendment to bring on record subsequent events regarding the redevelopment project. The Trial Court dismissed the application as the amendment would change the nature of the suit and was filed after commencement of trial. The High Court upheld the dismissal, noting that the Plaintiffs had not shown due diligence and the amendment was not necessary for determining the real controversy. (Paras 4, 6, 13-15) C) Civil Procedure - Revision - Section 115 CPC - The High Court examined the impugned orders under Section 115 CPC and Article 227 of the Constitution. It found that the Trial Court's orders were neither without jurisdiction nor suffered from any material irregularity. The discretionary orders were based on proper appreciation of facts and law. (Paras 10-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Trial Court erred in dismissing the Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion for recall of witness and exhibiting additional evidence, and the Chamber Summons for amendment of plaint to bring subsequent events on record.
Final Decision
Both the Civil Revision Application No.574 of 2018 and Writ Petition No.12569 of 2019 are dismissed. The impugned orders of the Trial Court dated 31.07.2018 and 24.06.2019 are upheld.
Law Points
- Recall of witness
- Additional evidence
- Amendment of plaint
- Subsequent events
- Civil Procedure Code
- Section 115 CPC
- Article 227 Constitution
- Jurisdictional error
- Material irregularity
