IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
C.R. No.638 of 2008
LALLA RAI
Versus
RAJENDRA PANDIT & ORS
-----------
2 15.7.2008 Heard Counsel for the petitioner.
The plaintiff petitioner seems to be aggrieved by an
order dated 17.3.2008 whereby and whereunder an
application filed by the petitioner on 7.2.08 for taking to
all the documents namely power of attorney of the year
1997 and an agreement of the defendant no.2 with the
plaintiff of the year 2006 has been refused to be taken on
record by admitting them into evidence and making them
as exhibits.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the power of
attorney executed by the plaintiff no.2 in favour of the
plaintiff no.1 was essentially required to be brought on
record and similarly there being an admission on behalf of
the defendant no.2 admitting the claim of the plaintiff in
the agreement of the year 2006, the Court below ought to
have also allowed such documents to be taken into record
by admitting them into evidence and making them as
exhibits.
In the considered opinion of this Court, the Court
below after holding that the aforementioned documents
having no relevance on the issues involved for
2
determination in the suit has correctly proceeded by
refusing such prayer of the petitioner by also taking into
consideration that the suit was of the year 1992 in which
issues were framed on 20.12.1999 and the plaintiff kept
on producing the evidence from 1.4.2000 i.e. for a period
of eight years before coming out with the prayer for
admitting the two new documents into evidence. The
Court below thus has rightly rejected such prayer of
petitioner in keeping with the spirit of Order XIII Rule 1 of
the Code of Civil Procedure which lays down that all the
documentary evidence must be placed on record by the
parties at a time settlement and framing of the issues, the
only exception being to the documents produced for the
cross examination of the witnesses of the other party or to
the documents handed over to a witness to refresh his
memory. Admittedly the petitioners being the plaintiffs did
not produce the copy of either of the two documents on or
before 20.12.1999 when the issues were settled and
framed by the court below and a subsequent discovery of
the two documents after more than eight years of the
commencement of hearing could not have been
straightway taken into evidence by marking them exhibits
only because the plaintiff petitioners have held the fort in
course of adducing their evidence for last eight years.
This Court has also taken into notice that the suit
3
is of the year 1992 and plaintiffs on being given the
opportunity to adduce their evidence from April 2000
have produced 22 witnesses in a period of last eight years.
If this be the pace of leading evidence by the plaintiff, the
suit is not likely to be concluded in next five years. In
such circumstances, this Court would direct the Court
below to ensure that the suit of the year 1992 is
expeditiously disposed of within a period of one and a half
years from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this
order.
This application thus being devoid of any merit is
hereby dismissed with the aforementioned observations
and directions.
Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)