Raghunandan Prasad And ANR v. Brij Mahto And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.670 of 2016 ====================================================== Raghunandan Prasad & Anr .... .... Appellant/s

Versus

Brij Mahto & Ors .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Prem Ranjan Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUNGESHWAR SAHOO ORAL ORDER 22-09-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.

2.

Perused the impugned order dated 03.03.2016 passed by the Sub-Judge-III, Barh in T.S. No. 93 of 2010, whereby the learned court below allowed the application filed by the defendants-respondents to mark the registered sale deeds as exhibit in the suit on payment of cost of Rs. 1000/-. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that argument in the suit is going on and that there is no mention in the written statement with respect to the documents. Therefore, the Court could not have granted leave to the respondents to get the documents marked as exhibit. Learned counsel further submitted that the court below in the order itself held that the plaintiffs are being prejudiced but has allowed the application. 4.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the

respondents submitted that the defendants-respondents specifically pleaded in the written statement that the Will which has been produced by the plaintiff is forged and fabricated document. Therefore, in support of the same, the document is being produced by the respondents. The learned counsel further submitted that so far prejudice is concerned, the court below considering the fact has granted liberty to the plaintiffs to adduce evidence in rebuttal and also awarded cost.

5.

Perused the impugned order. It appears that the court below has held that the plaintiffs will be prejudiced but the court below has granted liberty to the petitioners to adduce evidence in rebuttal and cost of Rs. 1000/- has also been awarded. The learned court below also recorded that the documents are required in the interest of justice as the documents are public documents and more than 30 years old.

6.

So far non pleading regarding the documents in the written statement is concerned, it may be mentioned here that it is not denied that the defendants specifically pleaded that the Will is forged and fabricated document. According to Order VI Rule 2 C.P.C, a party is required to plead the fact and not the evidence. Therefore, the fact has been pleaded in the written statement. Now, evidence is being sought to be produced i.e. documentary

evidences. So far belated stage is concerned, it may be mentioned here that on the ground of delay, justice cannot be denied. Once it is found that the documents are necessary for decision in the case, the Court has the jurisdiction to receive the documents in evidence even after conclusion of the argument and even it has been posted for judgment. In this matter, reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of K.K.Velusamy Vs. N. Palaanisamy reported in 2011 (11) SCC 275. The Supreme Court has held that the Court has inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 C.P.C. Now, therefore, when the court below has exercised the inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 of the C.P.C.

, in my opinion, even if another view is possible, this Court cannot take another view particularly in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction so as to supervise the impugned order specially when the court has compensated the petitioner and also granted liberty to adduce evidence in rebuttal, if so advised. Thus, I find that it is not a case for interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction. Accordingly, this civil miscellaneous is dismissed.