I have considered the rival circumstances and the
submissions made. One of the objects of Order 12 Rule 2A of
C.P.C. is to curtail the time taken for recording of evidence and
exhibiting the documents and thereby expediting the trial. Order
12 Rule 2A of C.P.C. in turn provides that every document which a
party is called upon to admit, if not denied specifically or by
necessary implication, or stated to be not admitted in the pleading
of that party or in his reply to the notice to admit documents, shall
be deemed to be admitted except as against a person under a
disability. The proviso to Order 12 Rule 2A(1) of C.P.C. states that
the Court in its discretion and for reasons to be recorded require
any document so admitted to be proved, otherwise than by such
admission.
It can thus be seen that once, in pursuance of a notice
to admit the documents, the party concerned does not deny the
documents specifically or by necessary implication, the same shall
be deemed to be admitted. In fact, there was no dispute denying
the arguments at the Bar that the documents will have to be
treated to be admitted in evidence. The only question is about
marking of exhibits. Normally, mere marking of documents as
exhibits does not amount to proof and it is always open to the
Court to decide the same in accordance with law. The format of
notice as provided in Form No. 9 of Appendix C in the C.P.C. would
also show that the admission as envisaged under Order 12 Rule 3
of C.P.C. is subject to all just exceptions to the admissibility of
such documents as evidence in such suits. Both the cases cited on
behalf of the respondents arose out of a situation where the
parties had led oral evidence. In other words, in none of the cases
cited above, there was a notice to admit documents given. Be that
as it may, having regard to the provisions of Order 12 Rule 2A of
C.P.C. and the fact that the documents are not specifically denied,
the documents will have to be treated as admitted, subject to all
just exceptions as to the admissibility of the documents as
evidence. Thus, the petition will have to succeed. Accordingly, the
impugned order is hereby set aside. The application filed by the
petitioner is allowed. The documents produced alongwith notice to
admit the documents shall be treated to be admitted, subject to all
just exceptions to their admissibility as evidence.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
WRIT PETITION NO. 653 OF 2015
M/s Sociedade de Fomento
Industrial Limited,
Versus
Smt. Sita Shripad Narvekar,
CORAM:- C. V. BHADANG, J.
DATE:- 19th OCTOBER, 2015.
Citation:2016(2) MHLJ 958
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Mr. Nadkarni,
learned Counsel waives service on behalf of the respondents.
Heard finally with the consent of the parties.
2. By this petition, the petitioner who is the original
defendant is challenging the order dated 30.06.2015 passed by the
learned Ad-hoc Senior Civil Judge, Margao in Special Civil Suit No.
58/2013/III. By the impugned order, the application filed by the
petitioner for exhibiting certain documents has been dismissed.
3. The brief facts are that the petitioner served a notice to
admit the documents, on the respondents under Order 12 Rule 3
of the C.P.C. The notice was served on or about 18.11.2014. The
documents which the petitioner wanted the respondents to admit
are some letters by the petitioner to the respondents which are in
excess of a thousand communications. It is further undisputed
that the respondents did not specifically deny the said documents.
In that view of the matter, an application came to be filed on
behalf of the petitioner on 15.01.2015, placing reliance on Order
12 Rule 2A of the C.P.C. It was contended that in terms of the
provisions of Order 12 Rule 2A of the C.P.C., as the documents
were not specifically denied, they stand admitted. The petitioner
prayed that the documents be exhibited.
4. The learned trial Court by the impugned order has
dismissed the application on the ground that the failure on the part
of the respondents, to specifically deny the documents does not
mean that the contents of the documents are admitted.
5. It is submitted by Mr. Bhobe, the learned Counsel for
the petitioner that the view taken by the trial Court is contrary to
the provisions of Order 12 Rule 2A of C.P.C. It is submitted that
the said Rule envisages that the documents shall be treated to be
admitted in case, the adversary fails to specifically deny the
documents.
The learned Counsel has placed reliance on the decision
of this Court, in the case of Geeta Marine Services Pvt. Ltd.
and Another Vs. State and Another, reported in 2009 ALL MR
(Cri) 672.
6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Mr. Nadkarni, the
learned Counsel for the respondents that the time to exhibit the
documents has not yet arrived. The learned Counsel fairly
submitted that there was no response to the notice to admit the
documents and in that view of the matter, in the absence of
specific denial, the provisions of Order 12 Rule 2A of C.P.C. would
come into play. In short, the submission is that the documents
can only be exhibited when the petitioner enters into the witness
box and tenders his evidence.
The learned Counsel for the respondents in this regard
has placed reliance on the provisions of Order 13 Rules 4 and 7,
Order 18 Rule 4 of the C.P.C. as also, the form of notice to admit
documents as provided in Form No. 9 of Appendix C to the C.P.C.
Reliance is also placed on paras 522, 523 and 524 of the
Manual. The learned Counsel has placed reliance on the decisions
of this Court in the case of Rekha Ramrao Bhujang Vs.
Subhadrabai Keshavrao Bunage and Others, reported in
2012(3) Bom.C.R. 156 and in the case of Sunil Tukaram
Bharadkar Vs. Santosh Gopichand Rane, reported in 2006(5)
Bom.C.R. 237.
7. I have considered the rival circumstances and the
submissions made. One of the objects of Order 12 Rule 2A of
C.P.C. is to curtail the time taken for recording of evidence and
exhibiting the documents and thereby expediting the trial. Order
12 Rule 2A of C.P.C. in turn provides that every document which a
party is called upon to admit, if not denied specifically or by
necessary implication, or stated to be not admitted in the pleading
of that party or in his reply to the notice to admit documents, shall
be deemed to be admitted except as against a person under a
disability. The proviso to Order 12 Rule 2A(1) of C.P.C. states that
the Court in its discretion and for reasons to be recorded require
any document so admitted to be proved, otherwise than by such
admission.
It can thus be seen that once, in pursuance of a notice
to admit the documents, the party concerned does not deny the
documents specifically or by necessary implication, the same shall
be deemed to be admitted. In fact, there was no dispute denying
the arguments at the Bar that the documents will have to be
treated to be admitted in evidence. The only question is about
marking of exhibits. Normally, mere marking of documents as
exhibits does not amount to proof and it is always open to the
Court to decide the same in accordance with law. The format of
notice as provided in Form No. 9 of Appendix C in the C.P.C. would
also show that the admission as envisaged under Order 12 Rule 3
of C.P.C. is subject to all just exceptions to the admissibility of
such documents as evidence in such suits. Both the cased cited on
behalf of the respondents arose out of a situation where the
parties had led oral evidence. In other words, in none of the cases
cited above, there was a notice to admit documents given. Be that
as it may, having regard to the provisions of Order 12 Rule 2A of
C.P.C. and the fact that the documents are not specifically denied,
the documents will have to be treated as admitted, subject to all
just exceptions as to the admissibility of the documents as
evidence. Thus, the petition will have to succeed. Accordingly, the
impugned order is hereby set aside. The application filed by the
petitioner is allowed. The documents produced alongwith notice to
admit the documents shall be treated to be admitted, subject to all
just exceptions to their admissibility as evidence.
8. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no
order as to costs.
C. V. BHADANG, J.
Print Page
submissions made. One of the objects of Order 12 Rule 2A of
C.P.C. is to curtail the time taken for recording of evidence and
exhibiting the documents and thereby expediting the trial. Order
12 Rule 2A of C.P.C. in turn provides that every document which a
party is called upon to admit, if not denied specifically or by
necessary implication, or stated to be not admitted in the pleading
of that party or in his reply to the notice to admit documents, shall
be deemed to be admitted except as against a person under a
disability. The proviso to Order 12 Rule 2A(1) of C.P.C. states that
the Court in its discretion and for reasons to be recorded require
any document so admitted to be proved, otherwise than by such
admission.
It can thus be seen that once, in pursuance of a notice
to admit the documents, the party concerned does not deny the
documents specifically or by necessary implication, the same shall
be deemed to be admitted. In fact, there was no dispute denying
the arguments at the Bar that the documents will have to be
treated to be admitted in evidence. The only question is about
marking of exhibits. Normally, mere marking of documents as
exhibits does not amount to proof and it is always open to the
Court to decide the same in accordance with law. The format of
notice as provided in Form No. 9 of Appendix C in the C.P.C. would
also show that the admission as envisaged under Order 12 Rule 3
of C.P.C. is subject to all just exceptions to the admissibility of
such documents as evidence in such suits. Both the cases cited on
behalf of the respondents arose out of a situation where the
parties had led oral evidence. In other words, in none of the cases
cited above, there was a notice to admit documents given. Be that
as it may, having regard to the provisions of Order 12 Rule 2A of
C.P.C. and the fact that the documents are not specifically denied,
the documents will have to be treated as admitted, subject to all
just exceptions as to the admissibility of the documents as
evidence. Thus, the petition will have to succeed. Accordingly, the
impugned order is hereby set aside. The application filed by the
petitioner is allowed. The documents produced alongwith notice to
admit the documents shall be treated to be admitted, subject to all
just exceptions to their admissibility as evidence.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
WRIT PETITION NO. 653 OF 2015
M/s Sociedade de Fomento
Industrial Limited,
Versus
Smt. Sita Shripad Narvekar,
CORAM:- C. V. BHADANG, J.
DATE:- 19th OCTOBER, 2015.
Citation:2016(2) MHLJ 958
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Mr. Nadkarni,
learned Counsel waives service on behalf of the respondents.
Heard finally with the consent of the parties.
2. By this petition, the petitioner who is the original
defendant is challenging the order dated 30.06.2015 passed by the
learned Ad-hoc Senior Civil Judge, Margao in Special Civil Suit No.
58/2013/III. By the impugned order, the application filed by the
petitioner for exhibiting certain documents has been dismissed.
3. The brief facts are that the petitioner served a notice to
admit the documents, on the respondents under Order 12 Rule 3
of the C.P.C. The notice was served on or about 18.11.2014. The
documents which the petitioner wanted the respondents to admit
are some letters by the petitioner to the respondents which are in
excess of a thousand communications. It is further undisputed
that the respondents did not specifically deny the said documents.
In that view of the matter, an application came to be filed on
behalf of the petitioner on 15.01.2015, placing reliance on Order
12 Rule 2A of the C.P.C. It was contended that in terms of the
provisions of Order 12 Rule 2A of the C.P.C., as the documents
were not specifically denied, they stand admitted. The petitioner
prayed that the documents be exhibited.
4. The learned trial Court by the impugned order has
dismissed the application on the ground that the failure on the part
of the respondents, to specifically deny the documents does not
mean that the contents of the documents are admitted.
5. It is submitted by Mr. Bhobe, the learned Counsel for
the petitioner that the view taken by the trial Court is contrary to
the provisions of Order 12 Rule 2A of C.P.C. It is submitted that
the said Rule envisages that the documents shall be treated to be
admitted in case, the adversary fails to specifically deny the
documents.
The learned Counsel has placed reliance on the decision
of this Court, in the case of Geeta Marine Services Pvt. Ltd.
and Another Vs. State and Another, reported in 2009 ALL MR
(Cri) 672.
6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Mr. Nadkarni, the
learned Counsel for the respondents that the time to exhibit the
documents has not yet arrived. The learned Counsel fairly
submitted that there was no response to the notice to admit the
documents and in that view of the matter, in the absence of
specific denial, the provisions of Order 12 Rule 2A of C.P.C. would
come into play. In short, the submission is that the documents
can only be exhibited when the petitioner enters into the witness
box and tenders his evidence.
The learned Counsel for the respondents in this regard
has placed reliance on the provisions of Order 13 Rules 4 and 7,
Order 18 Rule 4 of the C.P.C. as also, the form of notice to admit
documents as provided in Form No. 9 of Appendix C to the C.P.C.
Reliance is also placed on paras 522, 523 and 524 of the
Manual. The learned Counsel has placed reliance on the decisions
of this Court in the case of Rekha Ramrao Bhujang Vs.
Subhadrabai Keshavrao Bunage and Others, reported in
2012(3) Bom.C.R. 156 and in the case of Sunil Tukaram
Bharadkar Vs. Santosh Gopichand Rane, reported in 2006(5)
Bom.C.R. 237.
7. I have considered the rival circumstances and the
submissions made. One of the objects of Order 12 Rule 2A of
C.P.C. is to curtail the time taken for recording of evidence and
exhibiting the documents and thereby expediting the trial. Order
12 Rule 2A of C.P.C. in turn provides that every document which a
party is called upon to admit, if not denied specifically or by
necessary implication, or stated to be not admitted in the pleading
of that party or in his reply to the notice to admit documents, shall
be deemed to be admitted except as against a person under a
disability. The proviso to Order 12 Rule 2A(1) of C.P.C. states that
the Court in its discretion and for reasons to be recorded require
any document so admitted to be proved, otherwise than by such
admission.
It can thus be seen that once, in pursuance of a notice
to admit the documents, the party concerned does not deny the
documents specifically or by necessary implication, the same shall
be deemed to be admitted. In fact, there was no dispute denying
the arguments at the Bar that the documents will have to be
treated to be admitted in evidence. The only question is about
marking of exhibits. Normally, mere marking of documents as
exhibits does not amount to proof and it is always open to the
Court to decide the same in accordance with law. The format of
notice as provided in Form No. 9 of Appendix C in the C.P.C. would
also show that the admission as envisaged under Order 12 Rule 3
of C.P.C. is subject to all just exceptions to the admissibility of
such documents as evidence in such suits. Both the cased cited on
behalf of the respondents arose out of a situation where the
parties had led oral evidence. In other words, in none of the cases
cited above, there was a notice to admit documents given. Be that
as it may, having regard to the provisions of Order 12 Rule 2A of
C.P.C. and the fact that the documents are not specifically denied,
the documents will have to be treated as admitted, subject to all
just exceptions as to the admissibility of the documents as
evidence. Thus, the petition will have to succeed. Accordingly, the
impugned order is hereby set aside. The application filed by the
petitioner is allowed. The documents produced alongwith notice to
admit the documents shall be treated to be admitted, subject to all
just exceptions to their admissibility as evidence.
8. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no
order as to costs.
C. V. BHADANG, J.
No comments:
Post a Comment