ANNAYAA SHEREGAR Vs. K. SANTOSHKUMAR SHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. This Court having heard this matter at the stage of Admission, earlier had opined that the petition is liable to be rejected. However, as a last resort, the learned counsel for the petitioner had sought time to report settlement on the footing that certain amount would be paid, on the basis of which the matter could be compounded. However, the learned counsel on further instructions stated that he has a case on merits and sought leave to file an application to produce additional documents in support of his case. The said application numbered as I.A. 1/2014 is now placed before the Court. In the application, it is claimed by the petitioner that during the pendency of the case, the petitioner could not produce the documents such as bank pass book, RC book and contract whereby certain civil works were allotted by the Zilla Panchayat, Udupi. On account of communication gap between the counsel and the petitioner, on the footing that the petitioner was residing in Mumbai, when the case was pending before a Court at Udupi and therefore, there was a communication gap resulting in the petitioner not being able to furnish the documents which are relevant for the case and hence, has sought permission to produce the same and for the same to be considered in support of the petitioner's case.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the respondent has filed objections vehemently opposing the application and seeks to file across the Bar, which practice is deprecated. However, the petition is being considered for final disposal. The objections are taken on record. The objections are formal in nature denying all the documents now sought to be produced, could be taken on record, if the respondent had an opportunity before the Trial Court as well as the Lower Appellate Court to support his case, by all the documents and materials which were at his command and present the documents sought to be produced, would not in any manner advance the case of the petitioner. When all material are already on record, the petitioner's defence is not tenable. In any event, the question of considering the additional documents sought to be produced by the petitioner could only be, if there is an area of doubt that could be shown, insofar as the reasoning of both the courts below in arriving at findings against the petitioner. Therefore, when the facts of the case and the findings of the courts below are taken into account, there is little merit in the case of the petitioner and the additional documents now sought to be produced belatedly would hardly advance the case of the petitioner.

(3.) AS already stated, the additional documents now sought to be produced by the petitioner, such as, bank passbook reflecting certain amount being withdrawn by the respondent which is from the account of the petitioner and the vehicle which has been sold in favour of the accused/petitioner as referred to in Ex. D1, sought to be demonstrated with reference to a copy of the RC book of the said vehicle and apart from the fact that there were such transactions in relation to civil works that were being carried on by the respective parties and in one instance where the respondent has acted as power of attorney holder of the petitioner and it is sought to be demonstrated that the categorical statement of the complainant to the effect that apart from the cheque transaction, there was no other transaction between the parties, has proved to be false when there were a series of transactions over the years.