Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Suman Vitthalrao Jaikar, filed three writ petitions challenging orders passed in Special Civil Suit No. 267 of 1999, a suit pending since 1999. In Writ Petition No. 13189 of 2017, the challenge was to an order dated 09.11.2017 closing the petitioner-plaintiff's evidence. The petitioner's counsel was absent on that date because her senior had passed away; she appeared later and sought an adjournment, which was declined. The High Court held that this constituted sufficient cause for adjournment and that the trial judge should have granted an opportunity, if necessary by imposing costs. The impugned order was set aside, subject to the petitioner paying Rs.5,000/- costs to the contesting respondents within four weeks, failing which the petition would stand dismissed. In the other two petitions, the challenge was to orders depriving the petitioner of the opportunity to lead secondary evidence. The Court, relying on its decision in Karthik Gangadhar Bhat v. Smt. Nirmala Namdeo Wagh, held that no formal application is required to lead secondary evidence; the party can simply step into the witness box and justify its production. Since the petitioner's evidence was not closed and further opportunity was granted in the first petition, the petitioner was permitted to adopt that course. The trial judge was directed to allow the petitioner to proceed accordingly without being influenced by the impugned orders.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Adjournment - Sufficient Cause - Death of Counsel's Senior - The trial court ought to have granted adjournment when counsel could not appear due to demise of her senior, as it constituted sufficient cause; opportunity should have been granted even by imposing costs. (Paras 5-6) B) Evidence Law - Secondary Evidence - No Formal Application Required - As per Karthik Gangadhar Bhat v. Smt. Nirmala Namdeo Wagh, no separate application is needed to lead secondary evidence; the witness/party may step into the witness box and justify its production. (Para 8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in closing the plaintiff's evidence and refusing adjournment when counsel was absent due to senior's demise, and whether a formal application is necessary to lead secondary evidence.
Final Decision
Writ Petition No. 13189 of 2017 allowed; impugned order dated 09.11.2017 set aside subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- costs within four weeks, failing which petition stands dismissed. In the other two petitions, petitioner granted leave to adopt course in Karthik Bhat; trial judge to permit accordingly.
Law Points
- Sufficient cause for adjournment
- Opportunity to lead evidence
- Secondary evidence without formal application
