Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, legal heirs of the original defendant, challenged an order dated 10 March 2017 passed by the Civil Judge Junior Division, Khandala, in Regular Civil Suit No.87 of 1995. The order allowed the plaintiff (respondent no.1) to lead additional evidence under Order 18 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) to bring on record a compromise deed allegedly executed between the parties on 26 August 2012. The plaintiff contended that the document came into his possession after his evidence and cross-examination were concluded. The trial court permitted its production on 10 March 2016 and later allowed the application to prove it. The petitioners argued that the compromise deed was not genuine and that the application was filed belatedly. The High Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, held that the trial court's order was discretionary and not perverse. It noted that the document was relevant to the suit and that the petitioners would have an opportunity to challenge its genuineness during trial. The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the trial court's order.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Additional Evidence - Order 18 Rule 4 CPC - Compromise Deed - The trial court allowed the plaintiff to produce a compromise deed executed after his evidence was closed, holding that the document was discovered later and was relevant for disposal of the suit. The High Court upheld the order, finding no perversity or jurisdictional error. (Paras 3-6)
B) Constitutional Law - Supervisory Jurisdiction - Article 227 of Constitution of India - The High Court's power under Article 227 is limited to correcting errors of jurisdiction or perverse findings; it does not act as an appellate court. The impugned order being discretionary and not illegal, no interference was warranted. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in allowing the plaintiff to lead additional evidence under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC to prove a compromise deed executed after the plaintiff's evidence was closed.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the trial court's order dated 10 March 2017 allowing the plaintiff to lead additional evidence under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC.
Law Points
- Order 18 Rule 4 CPC allows additional evidence after closure of evidence if document is discovered later and is relevant
- Article 227 of Constitution of India confers supervisory jurisdiction on High Court but does not warrant interference unless order is perverse or without jurisdiction
- Compromise deed can be brought on record even if executed after evidence is closed.
Case Details
2018 LawText (BOM) (01) 181
WRIT PETITION NO. 4486 OF 2017
DR.SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.
Mr.Dilip Bodake for the Petitioners, Mr.Vaibhav R. Gaikwad a/w. Mr.Ramanik Pawan for Respondent No.1
Hanumant Gangaram Khamkar (since deceased through his heirs & legal representatives) Smt. Yamuna Yashwant Khamkar & Vasant Hanumant Khamkar
Satish Parbati Gaikwad, Sou.Kamal Eknath Bhargude, Sou.Shobha Atmaram Jadhav, Sou.Sharda Bhanudas Kadam
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India challenging an order allowing additional evidence under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC in a pending civil suit.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought to quash the trial court's order dated 10 March 2017 allowing the plaintiff to lead additional evidence to prove a compromise deed.
Filing Reason
The petitioners contended that the trial court erred in permitting additional evidence after the plaintiff's evidence was closed, and that the compromise deed was not genuine.
Previous Decisions
The trial court had earlier allowed production of the compromise deed on 10 March 2016 and later allowed the application at Exhibit-247 to prove it on 10 March 2017.
Issues
Whether the trial court's order allowing additional evidence under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC was perverse or without jurisdiction.
Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the compromise deed was not genuine and the application was filed belatedly after the plaintiff's evidence was closed.
Respondent No.1 argued that the document came into his possession after his evidence was over and it was relevant for the suit.
Ratio Decidendi
The trial court's discretion to allow additional evidence under Order 18 Rule 4 CPC, when the document is discovered later and is relevant, is not to be interfered with under Article 227 unless the order is perverse or without jurisdiction.
Judgment Excerpts
By this Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners are challenging the order dated 10th March 2017, passed by the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division, Khandala, District Satara, below Exhibit-'247' in Regular Civil Suit No.87 of 1995.
The application at Exhibit-247 was filed by Respondent No.1-Plaintiff under Order-18 Rule-4 of Code of Civil Procedure for leading additional evidence in order to bring on record the document pertaining to the compromise arrived at between the parties, out of the Court, on 26th August 2012.
Procedural History
The suit (Regular Civil Suit No.87 of 1995) was pending before the Civil Judge Junior Division, Khandala. The plaintiff filed Exhibit-247 on 10 March 2017 seeking to lead additional evidence to prove a compromise deed. The trial court allowed the application. The defendants (now petitioners) challenged this order by filing Writ Petition No.4486 of 2017 before the Bombay High Court, which was dismissed on 24 January 2018.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 18 Rule 4
- Constitution of India: Article 227
