AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.S. Patil, J.—Order dated 06.01.2010 passed by the trial court allowing the application filed by the plaintiff for reopening the plaintiff''s evidence for recalling and for production of certain documents and also to examine one witness on the plaintiff''s side is challenged is this writ petition.
The plaintiff had examined herself and marked other documents. The defendants examined themselves. The two defendants and the legal representatives of the deceased firs defendant also adduced their evidence. At that stage the plaintiff - respondent herein filed an application u/s 151 CPC for reopening the case. The respondent herein also filed one more application under Order 7 Rule 14 seeking for permission to produce additional documents, seven in numbers As the plaintiff did not produce either the list of documents or the documents along with the application, the said application was dismissed. However, two other applications which were filed, one u/s 151 and the other under Order 18 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC were kept pending. In such circumstances, the respondent filed one more application seeking permission to produce the documents, this time enclosing the list of documents and also the documents. All the three applications ware heard together and are allowed by the court below imposing cost of Rs. 200/-. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner - legal representatives of deceased first defendant have filed this writ petition.
Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the materiel on record.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the applications fifed by the petitioner was once dismissed and hence he is not entitled to maintain another application seeking for production of documents. He further contends that for the very same the plaintiffs evidence and for adducing evidence of one witness on behalf of the plaintiff, as plaintiff''s witness also cannot be granted.
However, learned Counsel for the respondent supports the order passed and contends that the plaintiff has made out valid grounds for producing the documents at a belated stags and for leading further evidence for reopening the plaintiff''s side. Hence, the trial court was right and justified in providing opportunity in the ends and justice to the plaintiff.
Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material on record, I find that though there is some substance in the contention urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the defendants had come up with the additional documents belatedly, the fact that the documents were not in the possession of the plaintiff and that she was able to secure the some subsequently is borne out from the affidavit filed by her. The affidavit also shows that the plaintiff was aged about 76 years and claimed to be suffering from multiple ailments resulting from the advanced age which came in the way of her obtaining the necessary documents at the appropriate time.
The court below has obviously kept in mind, the contents of the affidavit filed by the plaintiff while coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff deserved one more opportunity for adducing further evidence for reopening her case. The order passed is obviously in the ends of justice to provider full find fair opportunity to the plaintiff. The petitioners who ore the legal representatives of the first defendant have allegedly told the properly to question to favour of defendants No. 2 and 3. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff - respondent herein also submits that learned Counsel for defendants No. 2 and 3 have already cross-examined PW-2 adducing her evidence and marking the documents.
In the above circumstances, I do not find that it will be in the ends of justice to interfere with the order passed. Hence, the petition is dismissed.