High CourtsSingle Bench(2018) 06 JH CK 0005

Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd vs M/s. Jeypore Sugar Co. Ltd

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 12 June 2018

HON’BLE JUDGES
SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition © No. 2329 of 2004

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

13 paragraphs · 257 words
1.

The petitioner-Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited is aggrieved of order dated 12.03.2004 by which its application for admitting documents in

Money Suit No. 01 of 1995 has been rejected. Â

2.

In Money Suit No. 01 of 1995, the petitioner is the plaintiff. The suit was instituted on 04.01.1995 and it was admitted for hearing vide order

dated 04.08.1995. Issues in the suit were settled on 11.07.2001 and on 06.07.2002 the plaintiff examined its first witness. In the meantime, the

suit proceeded exparte against defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 3 was debarred from filing written statement. After P.W. 2 was partly examined

on behalf of the plaintiff, an application under Order XIII Rule 2 C.P.C read with Section 151 C.P.C was filed by the plaintiff on 01.04.2003 for taking

certain documents on record. Plea taken by the petitioner that those documents were in custody of the Record-Keeper who had superannuated

from service and thus were not traceable, has been seriously disputed by the defendants. Â

3.

About 10 years after the suit was admitted for hearing, in my opinion, the trial Judge has rightly declined to admit additional documents as evidence

in the suit. In the application dated 01.04.2003 the plaintiff has failed to plead how those documents are necessary for adjudicating the real

controversy in the suit. There is no foundation laid in the plaint in so far as relevancy of those documents is concerned. In the above facts, I find

no infirmity in the impugned order dated 12.03.2004.

4.

The writ petition is dismissed.Â