Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Hiren Pravin Doshi vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 25 February, 2021

Author: N. J. Jamadar

Bench: N. J. Jamadar

                                                           17-comss-11-2004.doc




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
              ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

                INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.3479 OF 2021
                                  IN
               COMMERCIAL SUMMARY SUIT NO.11 OF 2004

Hiren Pravin Doshi                                  ...Applicant/
                                                    Ori.Plaintiff
           vs.
The State of Maharashtra and Ors.                   ...Defendants

Ms. Nupur Mukherjee i/b. M/s. N.N. Vaishnawa & Co., for the
Plaintiff.
Ms. Jyoti Chavan, AGP for the State.
Dr. Prateek M. Rathi, Administrative Medical Offcer, ESI Scheme,
Worli, Mumbai present.

                         CORAM : N. J. JAMADAR, J.
                         DATE :  FEBRUARY 25, 2021

P.C.:

.       This application is preferred by the Plaintiff to redact

paragraph Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 14 and 17(5) of the affdavit in lieu of

examination in chief fled by Defendant's frst witness Mr. Pratik

Motilal Rathi.



2.      The substance of the application is that the assertions in

above numbered paragraphs are wholly beyond the pleadings. A

party cannot be permitted to lead evidence in respect of facts

which are not pleaded.



Vishal Parekar, P.A.                                                       ...1
                                                          17-comss-11-2004.doc




3.      The Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 fled affdavit in reply. It is

contended that there is necessary foundation in the written

statement for the assertions made in the affdavit in lieu of

examination in chief. The ground of supply of medicines with

short expiry period and the initiation of proceedings under Sales

Tax Act have been taken in the written statement. Hence, the

application deserves to be rejected.



4.      I have heard the learned counsel for the Plaintiff and the

learned A.G.P for the State.



5.      The learned counsel for the Plaintiff took the Court through

the averments in the above numbered paragraphs of the affdavit

in lieu of examination of chief and the contentions in the written

statement. An endevour was made to draw home the point that

the assertions do not fnd support in the pleadings. It was urged

that in the absence of pleadings a party cannot lead evidence.



6.      Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court

in the case of Kattinokkula Murali Krishna vs. Veeramalla

Koteswara Rao and Ors.1 wherein in the backdrop of the election
1    (2010) 1 Supreme Court Cases 466.

Vishal Parekar, P.A.                                                     ...2
                                                             17-comss-11-2004.doc




dispute, it was enunciated that 'it is a settled principle of law that

evidence beyond the pleadings can neither be permitted to be

adduced nor can such evidence be taken into consideration.'

Reliance was also placed on the judgment of a learned single

Judge of this Court in the case of Rajendra Singh and Ors. vs.

Jitendra Singh Rajendra Singh Kushwaha and Ors.2



7.      The proposition that the party cannot be permitted to lead

evidence beyond pleadings is fundamental. However, the pleadings

cannot be construed very strictly.



8.      If the tenor of the defence sought to be put forth on behalf of

the Defendants is considered then it would be diffcult to accede

to the submission that there is no foundation in the pleadings as

regards the supply of medicines with a short expiry period and

initiation of proceedings under Sales Tax Act. So far as the

initiation of prosecution by C.B.I., in the cross examination of

P.W.1, the fact that the prosecution has, in fact, been initiated

against the Plaintiff, was conceded.



9.      In the aforesaid view of the matter, the submissions on

2    2014 (2) ALL MR 132.

Vishal Parekar, P.A.                                                        ...3
                                                              17-comss-11-2004.doc




behalf of the Plaintiff that there is no foundation in the pleadings

so far as the averments in paragraph Nos. 6, 8, 12, 14 and 17(5)

cannot be acceded to. The assertions in paragraph Nos. 7 and 9,

however, do not fnd support in the pleadings. Hence, the

application deserves to be partly allowed. Thus, the following

order.

                                ORDER

1] The averments in paragraph Nos. 7 and 9 of the affdavit in lieu of examination in chief of Mr. Pratik Motilal Rathi (D.W.1) stand redacted. They shall not be read as part of the affdavit in lieu of examination in chief of D.W. 1.

2] The application stands disposed of.

10. List the Suit on 18th March, 2021.




                                             (N. J. JAMADAR, J.)




Vishal Parekar, P.A.                                                         ...4