When court can allow production of original documents?

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

Writ Petition No. 19 of 2012

Decided On: 16.02.2012

Appellants: Shri Laximona Sanvlo Shetkar,
Vs.
Respondent: Shri Nanu Babal Shetkar

Coram; F.M. Reis, J.

Civil - Rejection of application - Order passed rejecting application of Petitioners to allow them to tender original documents in evidence - Hence, present petition - Held, on perusing records, though it was incumbent upon Petitioners to keep all documents at time when their affidavit in evidence was taken on record nevertheless, considering averments made in application and on perusal of impugned order, it was found that in interest of justice, it would be appropriate that Petitioners should be given another opportunity to tender original documents relied upon by Petitioners on record subject to payment of cost to Respondents - It was clarified that Petitioners should only produce original documents and no further oral evidence should be recorded at instance of DW1 - Petition disposed of.

Citation: 2012(4)ALLMR130, 2013(3)BomCR702, 2012(4)MhLj524

1. Heard Shri D. Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri V. P. Thali, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. Rule. Heard forthwith by consent of learned Counsels.

3. Shri V. P. Thali, learned Counsel waives service on behalf of the respondents.

4. The above petition challenges the order dated 14.12.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Quepem, in Regular Civil Suit No. 56/1995/B whereby an application filed by the petitioners to allow them to tender the original documents in evidence came to be rejected.

5. Shri Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has assailed the impugned order essentially on the ground that the copies of the documents as set out in the application were already on record and only the original thereof were sought to be produced by the petitioners. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the learned Trial Judge has erroneously passed the impugned order which resulted in injustice to the petitioners as the original documents which are relied upon by the petitioners would not be taken on record. The learned Counsel has taken me through the impugned order and pointed out that the learned Judge has acted in material irregularity whilst passing the impugned order which calls for interference by this Court in exercise of its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

6. On the other hand, Shri V. P. Thali, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has disputed the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners. The learned Counsel has pointed out that the petitioners are delaying the matter and for the same reason they have sought two adjournments. The learned Counsel however does not dispute that the documents as set out in the application are the documents which were already relied by the petitioners whilst filing the written statement and that the copies thereof were already in the file. The learned Counsel further pointed out that considering that the suit was a direction matter, the learned Judge was justified to pass the impugned order.

7. Having heard the learned Counsel and on perusal of the records, though it was incumbent upon the petitioners to keep all the documents at the time when their affidavit in evidence was taken on record nevertheless, considering the averments made in the application and on perusal of the impugned order, I find that in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate that the petitioners should be given another opportunity to tender the original documents relied upon by the petitioners on record subject to payment of the cost to the respondents. It is clarified that the petitioners shall only produce the original documents and no further oral evidence shall be recorded at the instance of DW1.

8. In view of the above, I pass the following :

ORDER

(i) The impugned order dated 14.12.2011 is quashed and set aside.

(ii) The petitioners are permitted to produce the original documents referred to in the application dated 22.11.2011 subject to payment of the costs of Rs.4000/-to the respondents as condition precedent.

(iii) The petition stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.

Print Page