Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Bhausaheb Hasanrao Deshmukh, is the plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No. 78 of 1999 pending before the trial court. The suit pertains to some civil dispute. The plaintiff had earlier filed Writ Petition No. 3570 of 2014 before the Bombay High Court challenging the rejection of his application at Exh.236 for permission to produce certain documents. The High Court, by judgment dated 16.07.2014, allowed the production of those documents. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an application at Exh.245 seeking permission to lead oral evidence to prove those documents. The trial court rejected this application. The plaintiff then filed the present writ petition challenging that rejection. The High Court observed that the trial court's order was unsustainable. The right to lead evidence is a valuable right of a party. Merely because the suit is pending since 1999, the trial court could not refuse permission to lead oral evidence to prove the documents. The High Court set aside the impugned order and directed the trial court to permit the plaintiff to lead oral evidence to prove the documents. The writ petition was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Production of Documents - Permission to Lead Oral Evidence - The trial court rejected the plaintiff's application at Exh.245 for permission to lead oral evidence to prove documents which were permitted to be produced by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 3570 of 2014 decided on 16.07.2014 - The High Court held that the trial court ought to have permitted the plaintiff to lead oral evidence to prove the documents, as the right to lead evidence is a valuable right and cannot be denied merely because the suit is pending since 1999 - The impugned order was set aside and the trial court was directed to permit the plaintiff to lead oral evidence (Paras 1-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the plaintiff's application at Exh.245 for permission to lead oral evidence to prove documents that were permitted to be produced by the High Court in an earlier writ petition.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 30.09.2014 passed by the trial court below Exh.245 in Regular Civil Suit No. 78 of 1999 is set aside. The trial court is directed to permit the plaintiff to lead oral evidence to prove the documents. Rule is made absolute in those terms. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Permission to lead oral evidence to prove documents cannot be refused merely because suit is pending since long
- Trial Court must consider application for leading evidence liberally
- Right to lead evidence is a valuable right
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (11) 47
Writ Petition No. 6312 of 2014
Shri R.G. Kavimandan for Petitioner, Shri K.P. Sadavarte for Respondent nos. 1, 2, 6, 7 & 8
Bhausaheb Hasanrao Deshmukh
Uttam Kaduba Jadhav and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil writ petition challenging rejection of application for permission to lead oral evidence to prove documents in a pending suit.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought setting aside of the trial court's order rejecting application at Exh.245 and direction to permit him to lead oral evidence to prove documents.
Filing Reason
The trial court rejected the plaintiff's application for permission to lead oral evidence to prove documents that were permitted to be produced by the High Court in an earlier writ petition.
Previous Decisions
The High Court in Writ Petition No. 3570 of 2014 decided on 16.07.2014 allowed the plaintiff to produce documents. The trial court thereafter rejected the application at Exh.245 for permission to lead oral evidence to prove those documents.
Issues
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the application for permission to lead oral evidence to prove documents.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the trial court ought to have permitted him to lead oral evidence to prove the documents as the right to lead evidence is a valuable right.
The respondents opposed the application.
Ratio Decidendi
The right to lead evidence is a valuable right of a party. The trial court cannot refuse permission to lead oral evidence to prove documents merely because the suit is pending since long. The trial court ought to have permitted the plaintiff to lead oral evidence to prove the documents which were permitted to be produced by the High Court.
Judgment Excerpts
Merely because the suit is pending since the year 1999, I think permission for production of documents could not have been refused by the learned trial Judge.
The right to lead evidence is a valuable right of a party. The trial Court ought to have permitted the plaintiff to lead oral evidence to prove the documents.
Procedural History
The plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No. 78 of 1999. He filed application at Exh.236 for permission to produce documents, which was rejected by the trial court. The plaintiff challenged that rejection in Writ Petition No. 3570 of 2014, which was allowed on 16.07.2014, permitting production of documents. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed application at Exh.245 for permission to lead oral evidence to prove those documents. The trial court rejected that application on 30.09.2014. The plaintiff then filed the present writ petition challenging that rejection.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
