Gujarat High Court
Hemantbhai Vanmadi Patel vs Gangaben Dayadbhai Patel on 19 January, 2021
Author: Ashokkumar C. Joshi
Bench: Ashokkumar C. Joshi
C/SCA/14018/2020 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14018 of 2020
==========================================================
HEMANTBHAI VANMADI PATEL
Versus
GANGABEN DAYADBHAI PATEL
==========================================================
Appearance:
HARI K BRAHMBHATT(9070) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ASHOKKUMAR C. JOSHI
Date : 19/01/2021
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Hari K. Brahmbhatt for the petitioner through video conference.
2. At the stage of admission, learned advocate has agreed to dispose of the matter, therefore, the matter is taken up accordingly.
2.1 The petitioner-defendant has filed this petition to challenge the order dated 12.02.2020 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vapi, declining permission to produce documents at the stage of cross examination.
3. The facts in nutshell of the case are that the House No. 44/0 situated at agricultural land bearing Survey No. 537/A/17 was jointly owned by Harkishanbhai Jaganbhai, Premabhai Jaganbhai, Savitaben Narottambhai and Nitaben Narrotambhai. The respondent being a maternal aunt of the petitioner and Shri Dayalbhai Patel - Maternal Uncle were childless and therefore, Page 1 of 4 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 02:08:44 IST 2022 C/SCA/14018/2020 ORDER the respondent and shri Dayalbhai Patel adopted the petitioner right since his childhood after performing the ceremony as prevailing in the Hindu Kamli Caste. On death of Shri Dayalbhai Patel in the year 2005, the petitioner being adopted son had performed all the funeral rites. Since childhood, the petitioner was residing with the respondent and Shri Dayalbhai Patel in the aforesaid house. After marriage, the petitioner along with his wife and two daughters are residing in the aforesaid house. The respondent had issued a notice dated 20.06.2017 to the petitioner to vacate the said premises and hand over the possession under a purport that the petitioner with a view to ascertain his dominance on the said property had threatened the respondent and further had also sold off her ornaments. The respondent had preferred Regular Civil Suit No. 70 of 2017 before the Principal Civil Judge, Vapi, seeking possession of residential House No. 44/0. The petitioner has contested the said suit by filing his written statement below Exh. 12. The issues were framed by the Court vide order dated 4.7.2018. The respondent had tendered her deposition at Exh. 17 on 30.08.2018 and her cross examination was commenced on 7.11.2019. The petitioner had preferred an application at Exh. 33 dated 7.11.2019 seeking production of certain documents to contradict the statement of the respondent with such documents. Vide order dated 12.2.2020, the Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vapi dismissed the application dated 7.11.2019 inter-alia holding that the petitioner ought to have produced the documents at the time of filing his written statement and /or at the stage when the respondent tendered his evidence, instead of seeking their production by preferring application at Exh. 33.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Hari Brahmbhatt for the petitioner Page 2 of 4 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 02:08:44 IST 2022 C/SCA/14018/2020 ORDER vehmently and fervently argued that in the present case, the trial Court had committed serious error in not allowing the petitioner for production of documents though the liberty was granted that the petitioner-defendant shall availed the opportunity to produce the documents at the stage of evidence which may be adduced at his turn. Further, learned advocate Mr. Brahmbhatt has also taken this Court to Order- XIII, Rule- 3(a) of the Civil Procedure Code, which reads as under:
"ORDER XIII- Original documents to be produced at or before the settlement of issues.
(1)The parties or their pleader shall produce on or before the settlement of issues, all the documentary evidence in original where the copies thereof have been filed along with plaint or written statement.
(2) The Court shall receive the documents so produced:
Provided that they are accompanied by an accurate list thereof prepared in such form as the High Court directs.
(3) Nothing in sub-rule (1) shall apply to documents-
(a) produced for the cross-examination of the witnesses of the other party; or (b) handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory"
5. As per the plain reading of Order- XIII, Rule- 3(a) of the Civil Procedure Code, the parties are at liberty to produce documents in cross examination, therefore, any party can produce documents for cross-examination of the witnesses of other party, therefore, learned advocate Mr. Brahmbhatt has requested this Court that if the liberty is given, in that case, this petition may be Page 3 of 4 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 02:08:44 IST 2022 C/SCA/14018/2020 ORDER disposed of accordingly.
6. Regard being had to the argument advanced by the learned advocate for the petitioner, the issue requires consideration. He further fairly submitted that no further detailed reasons are required but to avail the direction in accordance with law and the petitioner may kindly be permitted to avail opportunity for production of documents at the stage of testifying the cross- examination of plaintiff. Further, he made statement at bar that testimony of plaintiff is not concluded. The trial Court shall give opportunity to produce documents in accordance with law under Order - XIII, Rule -3(a)(b) of the CPC and proceed with the matter in accordance with law.
6. This petition stands disposed of at the admission stage with aforesaid direction, with no order as to costs.
(DR. ASHOKKUMAR C. JOSHI,J) prk Page 4 of 4 Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 02:08:44 IST 2022