Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, as plaintiffs in a suit for eviction, sued two defendants. The second defendant, during his cross-examination, applied to produce certain documents. The Trial Court rejected that application. The second defendant filed a writ petition, and this Court remanded the matter for reconsideration of the rent receipts issue. On remand, the Trial Court again rejected the application. The second defendant then filed two more applications (Exhibits 83 and 86) seeking to produce additional documents. The Trial Court rejected those as well. The petitioners challenged those orders. The High Court held that the Trial Court had exercised its discretion properly and that the applications were belated. The Court found no error of jurisdiction or perversity warranting interference under Article 227. The writ petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Production of Documents - Order 13 Rule 1 CPC - Discretion of Trial Court - The second defendant sought to produce documents after cross-examination had begun, which the Trial Court rejected. The High Court held that the Trial Court's discretion was exercised judiciously and no interference was warranted under Article 227. (Paras 1-5)
B) Civil Procedure - Remand - Compliance with Directions - The High Court had earlier remanded the matter for reconsideration of the rent receipts issue. The Trial Court complied and again rejected the application. The High Court found no error in the Trial Court's order. (Paras 3-4)
C) Civil Procedure - Cross-Examination - Production of Documents - The second defendant's applications were filed after being confronted with documents in cross-examination. The High Court noted that the applications were belated and the Trial Court's rejection was proper. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Trial Court erred in rejecting the second defendant's applications to produce additional documents after the commencement of cross-examination, and whether this Court should interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the Trial Court had exercised its discretion judiciously and that there was no error of jurisdiction or perversity warranting interference under Article 227.
Law Points
- Order 13 Rule 1 CPC
- Order 18 Rule 17A CPC
- discretion of trial court
- production of documents at belated stage
- cross-examination
- remand
- no interference under Article 227
Case Details
2019 LawText (BOM) (07) 159
WRIT PETITION NO. 2106 OF 2018
Mr. Vishal Kande, a/w. Rajesh Chainani, I/b M/s S. Pathak & Co. for the Petitioners; Abdul Waheed Champawalla for the Respondent No. 2.
Shri. Navinchandra Khimchand Shah and Mr. Manish Dharnidhar Shah
M/s. PUTCO PVT LTD. and National Transport Company
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil writ petition challenging interlocutory orders of the Trial Court in an eviction suit.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners (plaintiffs in the suit) sought to challenge the Trial Court's orders rejecting the second defendant's applications to produce additional documents.
Filing Reason
The petitioners were aggrieved by the Trial Court's orders allowing the second defendant to file applications for production of documents after cross-examination had begun.
Previous Decisions
The Trial Court had earlier rejected the second defendant's application (Exhibit 73) to produce documents. The second defendant filed Writ Petition No. 9965 of 2016, which was partly allowed by remanding the matter for reconsideration of the rent receipts issue. On remand, the Trial Court again rejected the claim. The second defendant then filed two more applications (Exhibits 83 and 86), which were also rejected.
Issues
Whether the Trial Court erred in rejecting the second defendant's applications to produce additional documents after the commencement of cross-examination.
Whether this Court should interfere with the Trial Court's discretion under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners argued that the second defendant's applications were belated and an abuse of process.
The second defendant contended that the documents were necessary for his defence and that the Trial Court had not properly considered the remand order.
Ratio Decidendi
The Trial Court's discretion in refusing belated applications for production of documents after cross-examination has begun is not to be interfered with under Article 227 unless it is perverse or without jurisdiction.
Judgment Excerpts
The Trial Court has, however, rejected that application through its order, dated 13th July 2016.
This Court, through its judgment dated 04th October 2016, refused to interfere.
On remand, the Trial Court reconsidered the issue and passed an order on dated 26th October 2016, rejecting the second defendant’s claim to produce further documents.
Procedural History
The suit was filed in 2001. Issues were framed. Plaintiffs completed evidence. During cross-examination of the second defendant (D.W.1), he applied to produce documents (Exhibit 73). Trial Court rejected it on 13th July 2016. Second defendant filed Writ Petition No. 9965 of 2016, which was partly allowed on 4th October 2016, remanding for reconsideration of rent receipts. On 26th October 2016, Trial Court again rejected. Second defendant then filed two more applications (Exhibits 83 and 86), which were also rejected. The present writ petition was filed by the plaintiffs challenging those rejections.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Order 13 Rule 1, Order 18 Rule 17A
