- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Brahmdeo Prasad Sah And Another v. Ramsakal Sah And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioners initiated a title suit in the Court of Munsif at Hajipur seeking a declaration that the suit land is their self-acquired property and that a Deed of Gift executed by Basmati Devi in favor of the defendants is void. After the plaintiffs closed their case on 23-09-1983 and during the defendants' examination of witnesses, the plaintiffs filed an application to admit certain documents (a sale deed and municipal receipts) into evidence and to prove them through a witness. The learned Munsif rejected this application on the ground that the plaintiffs had not filed these documents earlier and that their case had already been closed. The petitioners challenged this order by filing a revision petition before this Court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the application to admit and prove documents after the plaintiffs' case was closed.
- Whether the amended provision of Order 18 Rule 2(4) of the Civil Procedure Code permits the court to allow examination of witnesses and admission of documents at any stage before judgment for the ends of justice.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioners' Arguments
- The plaint contained references to the documents and detailed their contents, but the documents could not be filed earlier as they were deposited in a bank as security and could not be retrieved sooner.
- The documents are valuable evidence that demonstrate the suit lands are the plaintiffs’ separate property purchased from their own earnings.
- The rejection of their application ignored the legislative intent behind the amendment in Order 18 Rule 2(4) of the Civil Procedure Code, which allows examination of witnesses at any stage before judgment for reasons to be recorded.
- The learned Munsif committed a material irregularity by not considering the application on merits and by allowing the defendants to produce documents while rejecting the plaintiffs’ similar prayer.
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the defendants' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court referred to Order 18 Rule 2(4) of the Civil Procedure Code, which empowers the Court to permit examination of witnesses at any stage before judgment for reasons to be recorded. The Court emphasized that this amendment reflects the legislative intent to ensure the ends of justice by admitting relevant evidence even at a later stage. The Court noted that the learned Munsif failed to apply this provision properly and did not consider the petitioners' application on merits. The Court also observed that the petitioners had referenced the documents in the plaint and that the delay in filing was due to the documents being held as bank security. Furthermore, the learned Munsif had allowed the defendants to produce documents but rejected a similar request by the plaintiffs, resulting in material irregularity. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and directed the trial court to allow the plaintiffs a reasonable opportunity to prove the documents through witnesses.
Holding and Implications
Revision allowed.
The impugned order rejecting the petitioners' application to admit documents after the close of their case is set aside. The trial court is directed to permit the petitioners to prove the documents through witnesses and to dispose of the suit in accordance with law. This decision directly benefits the petitioners by granting them the opportunity to present crucial evidence, but no new precedent beyond the application of the statutory provision was established.
1. The petitioners filed a title suit in the Court of Munsif at Hajipur for a declaration that the suit land is their self acquired property and that the Deed of Gift executed by one Basmati Devi in respect of the suit property in favour of the defendants is void.
2. After close of the case for the plaintiffs on 23-9-83 when the defendants were examining his witnesses in Court, the plaintiffs-petitioners filed an application for putting some documents in evidence and to get them proved through witness. The documents are in the nature of a sale deed and some municipal receipts. The learned Munsif on consideration of the facts of the case rejected the prayer solely on the ground that the plaintiffs did not file those documents earlier and the case of the plaintiffs having come to a close it is not open to examine further witness and to prove the documents. The order impugned is in challenge before this Court in revision.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that a reference regarding those documents was made in the plaint and the contents thereof were fully detailed in the plaint, but the same could not be filed earlier as the documents were in deposit in a Bank in security and could not be got back earlier, inter alia, it has also been submitted that these documents are valuable piece of evidence and are required for the just decision of the case. It is stated that these documents show that the suit lands are separate property of the plaintiffs purchased from the source of their own earning.
4. In spite of the service of the notice none has appeared on behalf of the defendants opposite party to contest this application.
5. Heard the learned Advocate, who has drawn my attention to O. 18 R. 2(4) of the Civil P.C (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’). Cl. (4) of R. 2 speaks, that notwithstanding anything contained therein the Court, may for reasons to be recorded, direct or permit any party to examine any witness at any stage. Thus keeping in view the trend or the intent of the Legislature, supported by the amendment brought about by O. 18 R. 2(4), it is clear that the Court, should in order to achieve the ends of justice admit into evidence any documents that might be filed by any party if they are relevant, to the determination of the issues in the suit, subject to if need be, providing opportunity to the other side for a rebuttal. The expression at any stage referred to above means a stage before the pronouncement of judgment.
6. The Court in the order impugned has not expressed that the documents an meant to fill up any lacuna which may be a circumstance to reject the filing of the documents at a later stage. The petitioner has submitted that the recitals regarding the documents were there in the plaint and the same were duly replied by the defendants in the written statement. But the same could not be filed earlier as they were deposited in the Bank and there was delay in getting back the document. The order impugned further shows that the learned Magistrate has allowed the defendants to produce some document but the plaintiffs' prayer has been rejected in the impugned order, the learned Munsif has failed to give importance to the amended provisions and thus, the Court committed material irregularity in not considering the application of the petitioners on merit, which vitiates the order in question.
7. In the result the application succeeds, the impugned order is set aside and the learned Munsif is directed to afford reasonable opportunity to the plaintiffs petitioners to get the document proved in evidence through their witnesses and to dispose of the matter in accordance with law.
Revision allowed.
Alert