Gujarat High Court
Jagdishbhai Parshottambhai Patel vs Rukshmaniben Wd/O Javahar Ramchandra ... on 5 April, 2023
C/SCA/5749/2023 ORDER DATED: 05/04/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5749 of 2023
==========================================================
JAGDISHBHAI PARSHOTTAMBHAI PATEL
Versus
RUKSHMANIBEN WD/O JAVAHAR RAMCHANDRA GURUBAXANI
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SP MAJMUDAR(3456) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4
for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 05/04/2023
ORAL ORDER
1. The present petition is filed by the petitioners by challenging the impugned order passed dated 17.03.2023 passed below exhibit 258 in Regular Civil Suit No.82 of 2008 by the learned Addl. Civil Judge, Vadodara, whereby the application filed by present petitioners under the provisions of Order I Rule 1(A) of the Civil Procedure Code is rejected.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. S.P. Majmudar with Mr. Jay Shah, learned advocate for the petitioners. 3.1 He has relied upon the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1(A) of the C.P.C. and has submitted that if the document, which is sought to be produced by the petitioners, was not there at the time of filing of written statement in pursuant Page 1 of 6 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 06 20:40:50 IST 2023 C/SCA/5749/2023 ORDER DATED: 05/04/2023 to the provisions of order I rule 1(a) after obtaining leave of the Court, the petitioner can produce such document at the time of trial. He has drawn the attention of this Court towards the averments made in the application at Exhibit 258 and more particularly, averments made at para 4 of the application, and has submitted that this document is very relevant to decide the controversy between the parties. He has submitted that there is no bar to produce any document even at the belated stage and though, now the trial is posted for arguments of the parties.
3.2 He has heavily relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sugandhi Versus P. Raj Kumar reported in (2020) 10 SCC 706, and has submitted that there is no straight jacket formula and the Court should not reject such application on hyper-technical ground, and more particularly, when such document is necessary for arriving at just decision in the suit.
3.3 He has further argued that the relevancy of the document is required to be seen, which states that the document is produced. He has further relied on the judgment of the Uttarakhand High Court in the case of Jyoti Mehta Versus Sandeep Verma and Another reported in 2021 SCC online Uttarakhand 1681.
Page 2 of 6 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 06 20:40:50 IST 2023
C/SCA/5749/2023 ORDER DATED: 05/04/2023 3.4 He has further submitted that the plaintiffs in the suit have already filed application under order VI rule 17 of the C.P.C., which was rejected by the trial Court, against which the plaintiffs have preferred the petition by way of special civil application, which is pending before this Court, and therefore also, no prejudice will cause to the rights of the plaintiffs if such application is allowed. 4.1 I have considered the submissions made at the bar. I have considered the provisions of order VIII Rule 1(A) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, which reads as under:
"Order VIII Rule 1A.
Duty of defendant to produce documents upon which relief is claimed or relied upon by him.--
(1) Where the defendant bases his defence upon a document or relies upon any document in his possession or power, in support of his defence or claim for set-off or counter-claim, he shall enter such document in a list, and shall produce it in Court when the written statement is presented by him and shall, at the same time, deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the written statement.
(2) Where any such document is not in the possession or power of the defendant, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose possession or power it is.
Page 3 of 6 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 06 20:40:50 IST 2023
C/SCA/5749/2023 ORDER DATED: 05/04/2023 (3) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the defendant under this rule, but, is not so produced shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit.
(4) Nothing in this rule shall apply to documents--
(a) produced for the cross-examination of the plaintiff's witnesses, or (b) handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory."
4.2 I have also perused the judgments, which are cited at the bar in the case of (i) Sugandhi (supra), (ii) Nutan Corporation Versus Sunil Thakorbhai Mehta reported in 2009 (0) GLHEL-SC 222585.
4.3 On perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the trial Court has given cogent and convincing reasons by discussing the provisions of law and the judgment cited at the bar in detail in the context of the application filed by the present petitioners under the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1(A) of the C.P.C. From the bare perusal of the application, it clearly transpires that the petitioners have not given any explanation that why the document is not produced at the time of filing of written statement and if the Court has found in the impugned order that even from the pleadings in the application and more particularly under Page 4 of 6 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 06 20:40:50 IST 2023 C/SCA/5749/2023 ORDER DATED: 05/04/2023 paragraph 6, which clearly transpires that the case of the petitioners does not deserves any consideration and no discretion is required to be exercised in favour of the petitioner.
4.4 This Court finds that the learned trial Court, after considering the relevant provisions of the law, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also after considering the impugned application, has rightly come to the conclusion that there is no reason to grant permission to produce such document and that is also, at such belated stage where there is no explanation coming forward that why it is not produced at the time of filing of written statement and neither it was the case that such document was missing. 4.5 Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the present case and considering the facts that this Court has limited jurisdiction under article 227 of the Constitution of India in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Garment Craft V/s Prakash Chand Goel reported in (2022) 4 SCC 181, whereby the Apex Court has said that supervisory jurisdiction of High Court when to be exercised, more particularly, paragraph 15 to 17 are relevant and this Court finds no reason to interfere in the order impugned order dated 17.03.2023 passed below exhibit 258 Page 5 of 6 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 06 20:40:50 IST 2023 C/SCA/5749/2023 ORDER DATED: 05/04/2023 in Regular Civil Suit No.82 of 2008 by the trial Court, which is otherwise found just and proper and in consonance with the records available with the Court.
5. In view of the aforesaid, the present petition is dismissed.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J) ds Page 6 of 6 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 06 20:40:50 IST 2023