Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, M/s. BGC International Pvt. Ltd. and Mr. Balaji Pothraj, were defendants in Special Civil Suit No. 22/2007/A filed by the respondents (M/s. Shree Mallikarjun Shipping and Carmona Agencies Pvt. Ltd.) seeking refund of an advance of Rs. 30 lakhs with interest. During the trial, the petitioners' witness, Shri K. Mohan (DW-1), was being cross-examined when it emerged that he had not produced any letter of authority or board resolution authorizing him to depose on behalf of petitioner no. 1. The petitioners then filed an application under Order 7 Rule 14 and Order 13 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking permission to produce additional documents, including a copy of the resolution and letter of authority. The respondents opposed the application, arguing that the documents were created as an afterthought. The learned Senior Civil Judge rejected the application on 7 July 2015, holding that it was belatedly filed to fill a lacuna without justifiable cause. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court at Goa. The High Court heard both sides. The petitioners argued that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents as cross-examination was still ongoing, and that the witness had already stated the date of the resolution (17 November 2014) during cross-examination. The respondents countered that the date was given fictitiously and the documents were subsequently manufactured. The High Court found that the trial court's discretion was exercised reasonably and that the petitioners had not provided any satisfactory explanation for the delay in producing the documents. The court noted that the documents appeared to be created as an afterthought to match the witness's statement. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the trial court's order.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Production of Documents - Order 7 Rule 14, Order 13 Rule 1, Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Belated Filing - The petitioners-defendants sought to produce a resolution and letter of authority during cross-examination of their witness, which were not earlier produced. The trial court rejected the application as belated and intended to fill a lacuna. The High Court held that the trial court's discretion was properly exercised and no interference was warranted, as the documents appeared to be created as an afterthought to synchronize with the date given by the witness. (Paras 3-7) B) Civil Procedure - Discretion of Trial Court - Order 7 Rule 14, Order 13 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Interference in Writ Jurisdiction - The High Court observed that the trial court's decision was based on a plausible view and did not suffer from any perversity or illegality. The writ petition was dismissed as the petitioners failed to show any justifiable cause for the delay in producing the documents. (Paras 5-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the application of the defendants to produce additional documents (resolution and letter of authority) during the pendency of cross-examination of their witness.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order of the learned Senior Civil Judge dated 7/7/2015 rejecting the petitioners' application for permission to produce additional documents.
Law Points
- Order 7 Rule 14 CPC
- Order 13 Rule 1 CPC
- Section 151 CPC
- discretion of trial court
- belated filing
- filling lacuna
- afterthought documents
