Whether application for re-examination of witness is permissible when matter is posted for judgment?

 Whether application for re-examination of witness is permissible when matter is posted for judgment?

S. 151, Or. 18 R. 17 and Or. 7 R. 14 - Recall of witness - Filing of application for re-examination of witness, when matter

posted for judgment - Exercise of inherent powers - Impermissibility of - Respondent-plaintiff filing suit for recovery of an

amount - When matter posted for judgment, respondent-plaintiff filed application to submit some more documents and

recall of PW 1 for proving those documents - Trial court rejected that application whereas High Court permitted it -

Unsustainability of - Held, though application was filed for filing of original copies of bills but they were not placed on

record even though they were in the exclusive possession of respondent-plaintiff - At such belated stage, when evidence

had concluded and arguments were heard, submission of bills was improper and respondent-plaintiff cannot be permitted

to fill up its lacunae in its case - No acceptable reasons or causes made out for accepting that application at the belated

stage despite sufficient opportunity being given to respondent-plaintiff to prove its case - When such application filed at a

very belated stage, even inherent powers under S. 151 cannot be used,

          REPORTABLE

          IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

            CIVIL APPEAL NO.  1787  OF 2013

M/s Bagai Construction          V M/s Gupta Building Material Store     

Citation;(2013)14SCC1:AIR 2013 SC1849

P. Sathasivam, J.

1)    Leave granted.

2)    This appeal is directed against the order dated 23.08.2011  passed  by

the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in  C.M.(M)  No.  707  of  2010  (Civil

Revision No. 707 of 2010) whereby the  learned  single  Judge  of  the  High

Court allowed the revision filed by the respondent herein and set aside  the

order dated 25.02.2010 of the Additional District Judge, Delhi.

3)    Brief facts:

(a)    The  appellant  is  a  proprietorship  concern  dealing  in  interior

decoration and construction work and Mr. Lalit Bagai is the sole  proprietor

of the said concern.  The respondent is a partnership firm  registered  with

the Registrar of Firms vide Registration No. 1237/93  dated  07.06.1993  and

is engaged in the business of sale and supply of building materials.

(b)   Admittedly, the appellant and respondent have  often  transacted  with

each other.   According  to  the  respondent,  the  appellant  made  various

purchases on credit from them for which payments were made in parts and  the

same were credited to his account maintained by them.  It is alleged by  the

respondent  that  after  adjusting  all  the  payments  being  made  by  the

appellant, an amount of Rs.4,35,250.18 is due  against  his  firm.   Despite

repeated demands, requests, and reminders, the  appellant  has  not  cleared

the outstanding amount.  Therefore, the respondent sent legal  notice  dated

11.04.2005 to the appellant through his counsel calling upon him to pay  the

outstanding dues along with interest @ 2% per  month.  Despite  notice,  the

appellant did not pay any amount, therefore,  the  respondent  instituted  a

suit against him for recovery of sum of Rs.4,35,250.18 along  with  interest

accrued  thereon.  After  the  arguments  were  concluded  in  the  suit  on

27.10.2009, the matter was adjourned for judgment on 03.11.2009.

(c)   In the meantime, on 31.10.2009 the respondent moved two  applications,

one   under Order VII Rule 14 read with Section 151 of  the  Code  of  Civil

Procedure, 1908 (in short “CPC”) for placing  on  record  certain  documents

and the other under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section  151  of  CPC  for

seeking permission to recall PW-1 for proving certain documents  by  leading

his  additional  evidence.   By  order  dated  25.02.2010,  the   Additional

District Judge, Delhi dismissed both the applications.

(d)   Dissatisfied with  the  said  order,  the  respondent  filed  revision

petition being  CM (M) No. 707 of 2010 (Civil  Revision  No.  707  of  2010)

before the High Court of Delhi.  The learned single Judge of the High  Court

by impugned order dated 23.08.2011 allowed the revision and  set  aside  the

order dated 25.02.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi.

(e)   Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has preferred  this  appeal

by way of special leave.

4)    Heard Mr. Siddharth Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant  and  Mr.

Jinendra Jain, learned counsel for the respondent.

5)    The only point  for  consideration  in  this  appeal  is  whether  the

plaintiff has made out a case for allowing the applications one filed  under

Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC and another application  under

Order VII Rule 14 read with Section 151  CPC?   The  trial  Court  dismissed

both the applications, however, the High Court by  the  impugned  order  set

aside the order of the trial Court and directed taking on record  the  bills

which are proposed to be filed  by  the  plaintiff,  granted  permission  to

recall PW-1 to prove those bills.  The  High  Court  passed  such  order  in

favour of the plaintiff subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/-

6)    In order to find out the acceptability of the impugned order  or  not,

it is useful to refer the relevant provisions of the CPC which read thus:

      “Order VII Rule 14

      14. Production of document on which plaintiff  sues  or  relies.-  (1)

      Where a plaintiff sues upon a document or relies upon document in  his

      possession or power in support of  his  claim,  he  shall  enter  such

      documents in a list, and shall produce it in Court when the plaint  is

      presented by him and shall, at the same time deliver the document  and

      a copy thereof, to be filed with the plaint.

      (2)   Where any such document is not in the possession or power of the

      plaintiff, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose  possession  or

      power it is.

      (3)   A document which ought to be produced in Court by the  plaintiff

      when the plaint is presented, or to be entered in the list to be added

      or annexed to the plaint but is not produced or  entered  accordingly,

      shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence  on

      his behalf at the hearing of the suit.

      (4)   Nothing in this rule shall apply to document  produced  for  the

      cross examination of the plaintiff’s witnesses, or, handed over  to  a

      witness merely to refresh his memory.”

      Order XVIII Rule 17

      “17. Court may recall and examine witness.- The Court may at any stage

      of a suit recall any witness who has been examined and may (subject to

      the law of evidence for the time being in force) put such questions to

      him as the Court thinks fit.”

      Section 151 of CPC

      “151. Saving of inherent powers of Court.- Nothing in this Code  shall

      be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Court

      to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or  to

      prevent abuse of the process of the Court.”

7)    Before going into the merits of claim of  both  the  parties,  let  us

recapitulate the views expressed by this Court through recent decisions.

8)    In Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar (dead)  through  LRs.  vs.  Sharadchandra

Prabhakar Gogate, (2009) 4 SCC 410, this Court had an occasion  to  consider

similar claim, particularly, application filed under  Order  XVIII  Rule  17

and   held as under:

      “25. In our view, though the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17  CPC  have

      been interpreted to include applications to be filed  by  the  parties

      for recall of witnesses, the main purpose  of  the  said  Rule  is  to

      enable the court, while trying a suit, to clarify any doubts which  it

      may have with regard to the evidence led  by  the  parties.  The  said

      provisions are not intended to be used to fill  up  omissions  in  the

      evidence of a witness who has already been examined.

      28. The power under the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC  is  to  be

      sparingly exercised and in appropriate cases and not as a general rule

      merely on the ground that his  recall  and  re-examination  would  not

      cause any prejudice  to  the  parties.  That  is  not  the  scheme  or

      intention of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC.

      29. It is now well settled that the power to recall any witness  under

      Order 18 Rule 17 CPC can be exercised by the court either on  its  own

      motion or on an application filed by any of the parties to  the  suit,

      but as indicated hereinabove, such power is to be invoked not to  fill

      up the lacunae in the evidence of the witness which has  already  been

      recorded but to clear any ambiguity that may have  arisen  during  the

      course of his examination.

      31. Some of the principles akin to Order 47 CPC may be applied when  a

      party makes an application under the provisions of Order  18  Rule  17

      CPC, but it is ultimately within the court's discretion, if  it  deems

      fit, to allow such an application. In the present appeal, no such case

      has been made out.”

9)    If we apply the principles  enunciated  in  the  above  case  and  the

limitation as explained with regard to the  application  under  Order  XVIII

Rule 17, the applications filed  by  the  plaintiff  have  to  be  rejected.

However, learned counsel for the respondent by placing heavy reliance  on  a

subsequent decision, namely, K.K. Velusamy vs. N. Palanisamy, (2011) 11  SCC

275, submitted that with the aid of Section 151 CPC, the  plaintiff  may  be

given an opportunity to put additional evidence and to recall PW-1 to  prove

those  documents  and  if  need  arises  other  side  may  be   compensated.

According to him, since the High Court has adopted the  said  course,  there

is no need to interfere with the same.

10)   In Velusamy (supra) even after considering the  principles  laid  down

in Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar (supra) and taking note  of  Section  151  CPC,

this Court concluded that in the interests of justice and to  prevent  abuse

of the process of the Court, the trial Court is free to consider whether  it

was necessary to reopen the evidence and if so, in what manner and  to  what

extent.  Further, it is observed that the evidence should  be  permitted  in

exercise of its  power  under  Section  151  of  the  Code.   The  following

principles laid down in that case are relevant:

      “19. We may add a word of caution. The  power  under  Section  151  or

      Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code is not intended  to  be  used  routinely,

      merely for the asking. If so used, it will defeat the very purpose  of

      various amendments to the Code  to  expedite  trials.  But  where  the

      application is  found  to  be  bona  fide  and  where  the  additional

      evidence, oral or documentary, will assist the court  to  clarify  the

      evidence on the issues and will assist in rendering justice,  and  the

      court is satisfied that  non-production  earlier  was  for  valid  and

      sufficient reasons, the court may exercise its  discretion  to  recall

      the witnesses or permit the fresh evidence. But  if  it  does  so,  it

      should ensure that the process does not become a  protracting  tactic.

      The court should firstly award appropriate costs to the other party to

      compensate for the delay. Secondly,  the  court  should  take  up  and

      complete the case within a fixed time schedule so that  the  delay  is

      avoided. Thirdly, if the application is found to  be  mischievous,  or

      frivolous, or to cover up negligence or lacunae, it should be rejected

      with heavy costs.

With these principles, let us consider the merits of the case in hand.

11)   The perusal of  the  materials  placed  by  the  plaintiff  which  are

intended to be marked as bills have already been mentioned by the  plaintiff

in its statement of account but the original bills have not been  placed  on

record by the plaintiff till the date of filing of such application.  It  is

further seen that during the entire trial, those documents have remained  in

exclusive possession of the plaintiff but  for  the  reasons  known  to  it,

still the  plaintiff  has  not  placed  these  bills  on  record.   In  such

circumstance, as rightly observed by the trial Court at this  belated  stage

and that too after the conclusion of the evidence and  final  arguments  and

after reserving the matter for pronouncement of  judgment,  we  are  of  the

view that the plaintiff cannot be permitted to  file  such  applications  to

fill the lacunae in its pleadings and  evidence  led  by  him.   As  rightly

observed by the trial Court, there is no acceptable reason  or  cause  which

has been shown by the plaintiff as to why these documents  were  not  placed

on record by the plaintiff during  the  entire  trial.   Unfortunately,  the

High Court taking note of the words “at any stage” occurring in Order  XVIII

Rule 17 casually set aside the order  of  the  trial  Court,  allowed  those

applications and permitted the plaintiff to place on  record  certain  bills

and also granted permission to recall PW-1 to  prove  those  bills.   Though

power under Section 151 can be exercised if ends of justice so  warrant  and

to prevent abuse of  process  of  the  court  and  Court  can  exercise  its

discretion to permit reopening of  evidence  or  recalling  of  witness  for

further examination/cross-examination after evidence  led  by  the  parties,

in the light of the information as shown in the order of  the  trial  Court,

namely, those documents were very well available throughout  the  trial,  we

are of the view that even by exercise of Section 151 of CPC,  the  plaintiff

cannot be permitted.

12)   After change of various provisions by way of amendment in the CPC,  it

is desirable that  the  recording  of  evidence  should  be  continuous  and

followed by arguments and decision thereon within a reasonable  time.   This

Court has repeatedly held that courts should constantly endeavour to  follow

such a time schedule.  If the same is not followed, the purpose of  amending

several provisions in the Code would get defeated.   In  fact,  applications

for adjournments, reopening and recalling are interim measures, could be  as

far as possible avoided and  only  in  compelling  and  acceptable  reasons,

those applications  are  to  be  considered.   We  are  satisfied  that  the

plaintiff has filed those two applications before the trial Court  in  order

to overcome the lacunae in the plaint, pleadings and evidence.   It  is  not

the case of the plaintiff that it was not given  adequate  opportunity.   In

fact, the materials placed show  that  the  plaintiff  has  filed  both  the

applications after more than sufficient opportunity had been granted  to  it

to prove its case.  During the entire trial, those documents  have  remained

in exclusive possession of the plaintiff, still  plaintiff  has  not  placed

those bills on record.  It further shows that final arguments were heard  on

number of times and judgment was reserved and only thereafter, in  order  to

improve its case, the plaintiff came forward with  such  an  application  to

avoid the final judgment against it.  Such course is  not  permissible  even

with the aid of Section 151 CPC.

13)   Under these circumstances, the impugned order of the High Court  dated

23.08.2011 in C.M. No. 707 of 2010 (Civil Revision No. 707 of 2010)  is  set

aside and the order dated 25.02.2010 of the trial Court is restored.

14)   The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.

                             ...…………………………………J.

                                   (P. SATHASIVAM)

                             ...…………………………………J.

                               (JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR)

NEW DELHI;

FEBRUARY 22, 2013.