Case Note & Summary
The Petitioner, Amines And Plasticizers Limited, was a licensee in two office premises owned by the Respondent, APL Holdings and Investments Limited and APL Investments Limited, under Agreements of Leave and License dated 29 March 1997. The license periods expired in 2006, but the Petitioner continued to occupy the premises. The Respondent filed suits for recovery of possession in the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai in 2009. The Petitioner defended the suits on the ground of irrevocable license. After the evidence was closed and the suits were at the stage of final arguments, the Petitioner filed applications in September 2025 seeking permission to lead further evidence of D.W.1 and to produce additional documents. The Trial Court rejected both applications on 20 September 2025 on the grounds of belated filing and lack of sufficient cause. The Petitioner filed revisions before the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, which were dismissed on 3 January 2026. Review petitions were also dismissed on 7 February 2026. The Petitioner then filed two writ petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the orders of the Appellate Bench and the rejection of the review petitions. The High Court examined the orders and found that the Trial Court and the Appellate Bench had exercised their discretion judiciously. The applications were filed after a long delay, the documents sought to be produced were not shown to be relevant, and the Petitioner failed to demonstrate due diligence. The High Court held that the concurrent findings of fact did not suffer from any jurisdictional error or perversity and dismissed both petitions.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Additional Evidence - Order 18 Rule 17 CPC - Application for recalling witness for further examination - The Petitioner-licensee sought to recall D.W.1 for further examination after the evidence was closed and the suit was at the stage of final arguments. The Trial Court rejected the application on the ground that the application was filed belatedly and no sufficient cause was shown. The Appellate Bench affirmed the order. The High Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the courts below do not suffer from any jurisdictional error or perversity warranting interference under Article 227. (Paras 1-21)
B) Civil Procedure - Production of Documents - Order 7 Rule 14 CPC - The Petitioner sought to produce additional documents after the closure of evidence. The Trial Court rejected the application on the ground that the documents were not relevant and the application was filed belatedly. The High Court upheld the rejection, noting that the Petitioner failed to show due diligence in producing the documents at the appropriate stage. (Paras 1-21)
C) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 227 of the Constitution of India - Scope of interference with concurrent findings of fact - The High Court reiterated that its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to correcting errors of jurisdiction or perversity in the orders of subordinate courts. Since the Trial Court and Appellate Bench exercised their discretion judiciously, no interference was warranted. (Paras 20-21)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Trial Court and Appellate Bench erred in rejecting the Petitioner's applications for permission to lead further evidence of D.W.1 and for production of additional documents, and whether the High Court should interfere with those orders under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
Both writ petitions are dismissed. The orders dated 3 January 2026 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court and the orders dated 7 February 2026 rejecting the review petitions are upheld. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Order 18 Rule 17 CPC
- Order 7 Rule 14 CPC
- Section 115 CPC
- Article 227 Constitution of India
- scope of revisional jurisdiction
- power to allow additional evidence at appellate stage
- test of due diligence and relevance
Case Details
2026 LawText (BOM) (04) 81
Writ Petition No. 3109 of 2026 and Writ Petition No. 3128 of 2026
Mr. Girish S. Godbole, Senior Advocate with Mr. Haaris Koradia i/b Sujit Lahoti & Associates for Petitioner in WP/3128/2026; Mr. Nirman Sharma with Mr. Haaris Koradia i/b Sujit Lahoti & Associates for Petitioner in WP/3109/2026; Mr. Gaurav Joshi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Gaurang Mehta, Ms. Neelam, Ms. Namita Shirke & Ms. Vanita Shinde i/b Mr. Jaydeep Thakkar for Respondent in both the Petitions.
Amines And Plasticizers Limited
APL Holdings and Investments Limited and APL Investments Limited
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil writ petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging orders of the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court rejecting revisions against Trial Court's refusal to allow additional evidence and production of documents in suits for recovery of possession.
Remedy Sought
The Petitioner-licensee sought to set aside the orders dated 3 January 2026 of the Appellate Bench and the orders dated 7 February 2026 rejecting review petitions, and to allow the applications for leading further evidence and production of additional documents.
Filing Reason
The Petitioner's applications for permission to lead further evidence of D.W.1 and for production of additional documents were rejected by the Trial Court on 20 September 2025, and the Appellate Bench dismissed the revisions on 3 January 2026, leading to the filing of the present writ petitions.
Previous Decisions
The Trial Court rejected the applications on 20 September 2025. The Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court dismissed the revisions on 3 January 2026. Review petitions were dismissed on 7 February 2026.
Issues
Whether the Trial Court and Appellate Bench erred in rejecting the Petitioner's application for permission to lead further evidence of D.W.1 under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC?
Whether the Trial Court and Appellate Bench erred in rejecting the Petitioner's application for production of additional documents under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC?
Whether the High Court should interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below under Article 227 of the Constitution of India?
Submissions/Arguments
The Petitioner argued that the additional evidence and documents were necessary for just adjudication and that the rejection was arbitrary.
The Respondent argued that the applications were filed belatedly, after the closure of evidence and at the stage of final arguments, and that no sufficient cause was shown.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court held that the Trial Court and the Appellate Bench exercised their discretion judiciously in rejecting the applications for additional evidence and production of documents. The applications were filed belatedly, the documents were not shown to be relevant, and the Petitioner failed to demonstrate due diligence. The concurrent findings of fact do not suffer from any jurisdictional error or perversity warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Judgment Excerpts
These two petitions are filed by the Petitioner-licensee challenging the orders dated 3 January 2026 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court rejecting the Revisions filed against the orders passed by the Trial Court on 20 September 2025...
The High Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the courts below do not suffer from any jurisdictional error or perversity warranting interference under Article 227.
Procedural History
The Respondent filed two suits for recovery of possession in 2009. The Petitioner filed written statements. Evidence was closed. In September 2025, the Petitioner filed applications for additional evidence and production of documents. The Trial Court rejected them on 20 September 2025. The Petitioner filed revisions before the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court, which were dismissed on 3 January 2026. Review petitions were dismissed on 7 February 2026. The Petitioner then filed the present writ petitions under Article 227 on an unspecified date. The High Court reserved judgment on 17 April 2026 and pronounced on 28 April 2026.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 18 Rule 17, Order 7 Rule 14, Section 115
- Constitution of India: Article 227
