Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that there was some delay in filing the application for bringing documents on record before the trial Court. However, according to him, the trial Court on earlier occasion NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:48836 3 MP-5163-2025 had allowed only two documents to be taken on record whereas in respect of remaining documents, it was directed to file along with an appropriate application. He has submitted that the trial Court has rejected the application only on the ground of delay in filing the same with an intention to delay the trial proceedings which is not indeed correct and, therefore, he has prayed that the application submitted by the petitioners may be allowed. He has fairly submitted that since the evidence has been completed and case is fixed for final arguments, therefore, if the defendants/petitioners are not allowed to exhibit necessary documents, the petitioners will suffer irreparable loss and injustice. He has also submitted that the earlier application moved by the defendants/petitioners on 24.04.2018 was rejected by the trial Court vide order dated 09.05.2018 (Annexure-P/10) mainly on the ground that despite granting liberty on 22.03.2017, the defendants took more than one year for moving the application which makes their intention clear that they wanted to keep the suit pending unnecessarily and as such, learned counsel for the petitioners has prayed that even by imposing some cost upon the petitioners, their application may be allowed and they may be permitted to bring those documents on record, however, the learned trial Court has not considered the same. He has further argued that the petitioners/defendants has cross- examined the plaintiff witness, namely, Vishan Das Parwani showing him document in question wherein the plaintiffs took an objection upon some question asked by the defendants but the trial Court did not decide the same then and there and kept the said question open for the stage of final arguments that too without marking exhibit upon the documents which is NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:48836 4 MP-5163-2025 contrary to the settled principle of law. He has also contended that the plaintiffs took the objection regarding exhibiting the documents for the purpose of cross-examining the plaintiff witness and the trial Court had to exhibit the same at the stage of cross-examination, however, the trial Court erred in not allowing the same.