2013 (2) TMI 931 - SC - Indian Laws

SC Reinstates Trial Court Decision, Denies Plaintiff's Request to File Extra Documents and Recall Witness.

The SC set aside the HC's order that allowed the Plaintiff to file additional documents and recall a witness, reinstating the trial Court's decision to ... - ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to leave under Order VII Rule 14 CPC to produce documents which ought to have been filed with the plaint but were not produced, at a stage after close of evidence and after final arguments have been heard. 2. Whether the Court may, under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC, recall a witness for re-examination to prove documents not earlier produced, when those documents were in the Plaintiff's exclusive possession throughout the trial. 3. Whether the inherent power of the Court under Section 151 CPC can be invoked to permit filing of such belated documentary evidence and recall of witness, where non-production is unexplained and the application is made only after arguments and judgment has been reserved. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Leave under Order VII Rule 14 CPC to produce documents belatedly Legal framework: Order VII Rule 14(1)-(4) CPC requires a Plaintiff to list and produce documents upon presentation of the plaint; documents not produced then shall not be received in evidence without leave of the Court; exceptions relate to documents produced for cross-examination or to refresh memory. Precedent Treatment: The Court applied the statutory mandate of Order VII Rule 14 and principles from controlling authorities addressing the strictness of production requirements. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court held that documents which ought to have been produced with the plaint cannot be used to plug lacunae in pleadings or evidence after trial has concluded, particularly where originals were in the Plaintiff's exclusive possession throughout the trial. The absence of any acceptable explanation for non-production weighed heavily against permitting belated production. Permitting such a course would undermine procedural amendments aimed at expedition of trials. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - a plaintiff who had exclusive possession of documents and failed to produce them during the trial cannot, without acceptable reasons, be permitted to produce them after evidence and arguments are complete; such grant would improperly permit filling of lacunae in pleadings and evidence. Conclusion: Leave under Order VII Rule 14 CPC to receive such belated documents was not warranted; the trial court correctly refused to receive them. Issue 2 - Recall of witness under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC to prove belated documents Legal framework: Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC permits the court to recall and examine any witness at any stage of the suit; the power is subject to the law of evidence for the time being in force. Precedent Treatment: The Court relied on prior guidance that Order XVIII Rule 17 is primarily to enable the court to clarify ambiguities or doubts in evidence, not to fill omissions or lacunae in a witness's previously recorded testimony (principles reiterated from Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar). It also considered the more flexible approach in K.K. Velusamy which permits reopening in the interests of justice subject to safeguards. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court emphasized that Order XVIII Rule 17 must be exercised sparingly and not as a device to remedy a party's failure to lead or produce evidence. Recalling a witness to supply omitted proof - when the documents were always in the Plaintiff's possession and no sufficient reason for non-production was shown - amounts to allowing a party to improve its case post facto. Although the rule uses the words 'at any stage,' that expression does not authorize routine reopening to cure negligence or tactical delay. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - the power to recall under Order XVIII Rule 17 cannot be used to enable a party to fill lacunae in its evidence where the omission is unexplained and the documents were available throughout the trial; such recall should be refused. Conclusion: Recalling PW-1 to prove the belatedly produced bills was not permissible; the trial court's refusal to recall the witness was proper. Issue 3 - Exercise of inherent power under Section 151 CPC to permit belated evidence and recall Legal framework: Section 151 CPC preserves the Court's inherent power to make orders necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process, subject to the Code. Precedent Treatment: The Court examined the interplay between Vadiraj (restrictive approach to recall) and K.K. Velusamy (permitting reopening in the interests of justice where non-production was for valid reasons), extracting principles and safeguards from both decisions. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court acknowledged that Section 151 may be invoked to admit additional evidence or to recall witnesses where non-production was for valid and sufficient reasons and where admitting evidence would assist clarification and the ends of justice. However, the exercise of Section 151 must not defeat the purpose of procedural amendments aimed at expedition, nor permit tactics to protract litigation. When documents were in the Plaintiff's exclusive custody and no acceptable explanation for their non-production was given, Section 151 cannot be used to cure the omission. The Court stressed the need for courts to avoid routine reopening, to award costs if reopening is permitted, to fix time schedules and to reject frivolous or negligent applications with heavy costs, per Velusamy principles. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Section 151 cannot be exercised to admit belated evidence or recall witnesses where the party had exclusive control of the documents and fails to offer valid reasons for non-production, such as to prevent parties from improving their case after trial; Obiter - procedural safeguards (costs, time schedules, rejection of frivolous applications) adopted from Velusamy as appropriate measures when reopening is allowed. Conclusion: Section 151 CPC did not justify permitting the belated filing of bills or recalling the witness in the present case; the High Court erred in setting aside the trial court's order by relying on the phrase 'at any stage' without regard to the absence of acceptable reasons for non-production. Cross-reference and Overall Conclusion Viewed together, the rules and authorities (Order VII Rule 14, Order XVIII Rule 17 and Section 151 CPC, interpreted in light of Vadiraj and Velusamy) establish that reopening evidence or admitting documents after close of trial is exceptional and contingent on bona fide reasons, absence of prejudice, and preservation of trial expedition. Where documents remained in a party's exclusive possession throughout trial and no acceptable explanation is furnished for non-production until after arguments and judgment reservation, neither Order VII Rule 14, Order XVIII Rule 17 nor Section 151 permit relief. The trial court's refusal to admit the documents and to recall the witness was correct; the High Court's contrary order was set aside.