Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Purushottam Shankar Ghodgaonkar, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 7 July 2011 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Chopda, allowing application Exh.154 under Order XIII Rule 3(1)(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) in Regular Civil Suit No. 167 of 2000. The suit was filed by respondent No.1, Gajanan Shankar Ghodgaonkar, for partition against the petitioner and other respondents. During the cross-examination of the petitioner, respondent No.1 sought to produce documents claiming they were reserved for cross-examination. The petitioner objected, and the application was initially rejected on 25 October 1996. The petitioner challenged that order in Writ Petition No. 869 of 1997, which was allowed, holding that no document can be reserved for cross-examination of a party. Subsequently, respondent No.1 filed another application (Exh.94) on 13 November 1998 to introduce the same documents, claiming they were received late. The trial court allowed production without hearing the petitioner. The petitioner challenged that order in C.R.A. No. 6 of 1999, which was disposed of with liberty to file a writ petition. The petitioner then filed Writ Petition No. 1325 of 2003, which was allowed, quashing the order and remanding the matter for fresh consideration. Thereafter, respondent No.1 filed application Exh.154 under Order XIII Rule 3(1)(a) CPC, which was allowed by the impugned order. The High Court found that the trial court had not considered the objections of the petitioner and had not followed the earlier directions. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the trial court for fresh consideration, directing that the application be decided after hearing both sides and in accordance with law. The writ petition was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Production of Documents - Order XIII Rule 3(1)(a) CPC - Late Production - The trial court allowed an application under Order XIII Rule 3(1)(a) CPC to produce documents at a late stage, despite earlier orders rejecting such production. The High Court held that the trial court must consider the objections of the opposing party and cannot allow production without hearing. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration after hearing both sides. (Paras 1-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in allowing the production of documents under Order XIII Rule 3(1)(a) CPC when the documents were sought to be produced at a late stage and had been previously rejected.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 7.7.2011 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the trial court for fresh consideration of application Exh.154 after hearing both sides and in accordance with law. Rule made absolute. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Order XIII Rule 3(1)(a) CPC
- Production of documents at late stage
- Cross-examination of party
- Remand for fresh consideration
Case Details
2012 LawText (BOM) (08) 11
Writ Petition No. 5519 of 2011
Mr. R.R. Mantri for petitioner, Mr. B.B. Kulkarni for respondent No.1
Purushottam s/o Shankar Ghodgaonkar
Gajanan s/o Shankar Ghodgaonkar and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging an order allowing production of documents under Order XIII Rule 3(1)(a) CPC in a partition suit.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to quash the order dated 7.7.2011 allowing application Exh.154.
Filing Reason
The trial court allowed production of documents at a late stage without proper hearing, contrary to earlier orders.
Previous Decisions
Earlier, the trial court had rejected a similar application on 25.10.1996, which was upheld by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 869 of 1997. Another application (Exh.94) was allowed without hearing, but was quashed in Writ Petition No. 1325 of 2003 and remanded.
Issues
Whether the trial court was justified in allowing production of documents under Order XIII Rule 3(1)(a) CPC without considering the petitioner's objections and the earlier orders of the High Court.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the documents were sought to be produced at a late stage and had been previously rejected; the trial court did not hear him before allowing the application.
Respondent No.1 contended that the documents were necessary for cross-examination and were received late.
Ratio Decidendi
The trial court must hear the opposing party before allowing production of documents under Order XIII Rule 3(1)(a) CPC, especially when there are prior orders and objections. The court cannot allow production without considering the merits of the objections.
Judgment Excerpts
This petition takes exception of the order dated 7.7.2011, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Chopda, thereby allowing application Exh.154 filed under Order XIII Rule 3(1)(a) of C.P.C., in R.C.S. No.167 of 2000.
The respondent No.1 herein has filed a suit for partition against the petitioner and other respondents herein.
The petitioner had objected to produce the documents for the first in cross, however, the said application was rejected on 25.10.1996.
This Court had allowed the said writ petition and quashed and set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Procedural History
The suit for partition was filed by respondent No.1. During cross-examination of petitioner, respondent No.1 sought to produce documents; application rejected on 25.10.1996. Petitioner challenged in WP 869/1997, which was allowed. Respondent No.1 filed Exh.94 on 13.11.1998; trial court allowed without hearing. Petitioner challenged in CRA 6/1999, disposed with liberty to file WP. Petitioner filed WP 1325/2003, which was allowed and matter remanded. Respondent No.1 then filed Exh.154 under Order XIII Rule 3(1)(a) CPC, which was allowed on 7.7.2011. Petitioner filed present WP 5519/2011 challenging that order.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order XIII Rule 3(1)(a)
