Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, the original defendant in Special Civil Suit No. 280 of 2017, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, challenging the order dated 3rd February 2020 passed by the 10th Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Aurangabad. The impugned order allowed the application of the original plaintiff-respondent for framing an additional issue: "Whether the defendant proves that the Tax invoices, the Delivery Challans are false, forged and fabricated document." The suit was filed by the respondent for recovery of money based on a mutual running account for supply of kirana (groceries) to the petitioner's restaurant since 2014. The petitioner had filed his written statement denying the claim and specifically pleading that the tax invoices and delivery challans were false, forged and fabricated. The trial court allowed the application for framing the additional issue, holding that it was necessary for just adjudication. The High Court, after hearing the parties, held that the trial court had not committed any jurisdictional error or perversity in allowing the application. The court observed that the petitioner had himself raised the plea of forgery in his written statement, and therefore, the burden to prove that plea lay on him. The additional issue was relevant and necessary for the proper determination of the suit. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in the challenge.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Framing of Additional Issues - Order XIV Rule 5 CPC - The trial court allowed the plaintiff's application to frame an additional issue on whether the defendant proves that the tax invoices and delivery challans are false, forged and fabricated. The High Court upheld this order, holding that the issue was necessary for just adjudication as the defendant had specifically pleaded forgery. (Paras 1-5)
B) Constitutional Law - Power of Superintendence - Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 - The High Court declined to interfere with the trial court's order, finding no jurisdictional error or perversity. The court noted that the trial court had exercised its discretion properly and the additional issue was relevant to the controversy. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in allowing the application for framing an additional issue regarding the genuineness of tax invoices and delivery challans, and whether the High Court should interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the trial court's order dated 3rd February 2020 allowing the framing of the additional issue.
Law Points
- Article 227 of the Constitution of India
- 1950
- Order XIV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure
- 1908
- Framing of additional issues
- Power of superintendence
Case Details
2021 LawText (BOM) (02) 15
WRIT PETITION NO. 7634 OF 2020
Prabiyotsing S/o. Harvindra Sing Bindra
Shrivallabh Ramgopal Ramchandraji Darak
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, challenging an order framing an additional issue in a civil suit for recovery of money.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner (original defendant) sought to quash the order dated 3rd February 2020 passed by the trial court allowing the framing of an additional issue.
Filing Reason
The petitioner challenged the trial court's order allowing the plaintiff's application to frame an additional issue on whether the defendant proves that the tax invoices and delivery challans are false, forged and fabricated.
Previous Decisions
The trial court (10th Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Aurangabad) allowed the application for framing the additional issue on 3rd February 2020.
Issues
Whether the trial court erred in allowing the application for framing an additional issue regarding the genuineness of tax invoices and delivery challans.
Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the trial court erred in framing the additional issue as it was not necessary for the just adjudication of the suit.
The respondent supported the trial court's order, contending that the issue was necessary as the defendant had specifically pleaded forgery.
Ratio Decidendi
The trial court did not commit any jurisdictional error or perversity in allowing the application for framing an additional issue. The defendant had himself raised the plea of forgery in his written statement, and therefore, the burden to prove that plea lay on him. The additional issue was relevant and necessary for the proper determination of the suit. The High Court declined to interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950.
Judgment Excerpts
This is a petition fled under Article 227 of the Constitution of India 1950, by the Original Defendant in Special Civil Suit No. 280 of 2017 (the “said suit”) assailing the order dated 3rd February 2020, passed by the 10th Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division) Aurangabad, allowing the application by the Original Plaintif Respondent for framing the following additional issue: “Whether the defendant proves that the Tax invoices, the Delivery Challans are false, forged and fabricated document”.
The trial court did not commit any jurisdictional error or perversity in allowing the application for framing the additional issue.
Procedural History
The original plaintiff filed Special Civil Suit No. 280 of 2017 for recovery of money. The defendant filed a written statement denying the claim and pleading that the tax invoices and delivery challans were false, forged and fabricated. The plaintiff filed an application for framing an additional issue, which was allowed by the trial court on 3rd February 2020. The defendant challenged this order by filing the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950. The High Court dismissed the writ petition on 16th February 2021.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India, 1950: Article 227
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order XIV Rule 5
