Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, defendant No.5 in a civil suit filed by Khandelwal Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., challenged an order dated 26/04/2018 passed by the City Civil Court, Greater Bombay, refusing leave to adduce additional evidence. The suit, instituted in 1983, sought recovery of money and possession of properties allegedly purchased from embezzled funds by defendant No.1, Rakesh Kapoor, who was employed as Chief Accounts Officer. The plaintiff alleged defalcation of Rs.47,01,135/- between May and October 1982, and that the properties were transferred to partnership firms through sham deeds. The defendants denied the allegations, claiming the properties were purchased from sale of family properties. During the suit, the Court Receiver was appointed over properties seized in criminal proceedings. The petitioner sought to produce additional documents after evidence was closed and the matter was at the stage of arguments. The trial court rejected the application, observing that the documents were within the petitioner's knowledge and could have been produced earlier. The High Court, in writ jurisdiction, held that the trial court's discretion under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC was not perverse or arbitrary, and the petitioner failed to demonstrate due diligence. The petition was dismissed, and rule was discharged.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Additional Evidence - Order 41 Rule 27 CPC - Due Diligence - Petitioner sought to produce documents after evidence was closed and matter was at the stage of arguments - Trial court declined on ground that documents were within petitioner's knowledge and could have been produced earlier - Held that the trial court's discretion was not perverse or arbitrary, and no interference warranted in writ jurisdiction (Paras 2-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in declining leave to adduce additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the trial court's order. Rule discharged.
Law Points
- Additional evidence
- due diligence
- Order 41 Rule 27 CPC
- discretion of trial court
- interference in writ jurisdiction
Case Details
2021 LawText (BOM) (03) 46
WRIT PETITION NO.6807 OF 2018
Ms Sonal Kapoor with Ms Rosy Kapoor and Mr. R.P. Shirole for the Petitioner; Mr. Kunal Dwarkadas with Mr. Vaibhav Bajpai and Mr. Swapan Samdani for Respondent No.1
Khandelwal Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil writ petition challenging an order refusing leave to adduce additional evidence in a pending civil suit.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to set aside the trial court's order dated 26/04/2018 and sought leave to adduce additional evidence.
Filing Reason
The trial court declined the petitioner's application for additional evidence on the ground that the documents were within his knowledge and could have been produced earlier.
Previous Decisions
The trial court passed order dated 26/04/2018 rejecting the application for additional evidence.
Issues
Whether the trial court erred in declining leave to adduce additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the additional documents were necessary for just decision and that he had shown sufficient cause for not producing them earlier.
Respondent opposed the application, contending that the documents were within the petitioner's knowledge and could have been produced at the appropriate stage.
Ratio Decidendi
The discretion of the trial court under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC to allow additional evidence is not to be interfered with in writ jurisdiction unless it is perverse or arbitrary. The petitioner failed to demonstrate due diligence in producing the documents at the appropriate stage.
Judgment Excerpts
The Petitioner-Defendant No.5 has challenged order dated 26/04/2018 whereby learned Judge, City Civil Court, Greater Bombay, has declined leave to adduce additional evidence.
The trial court declined the application on the ground that the documents were within the knowledge of the petitioner and could have been produced earlier.
Procedural History
The suit was filed in 1983. Evidence was closed and the matter was at the stage of arguments. The petitioner filed an application for additional evidence, which was rejected on 26/04/2018. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 41 Rule 27
