A. C. M. ENTERPRISES Vs. PRAKASH CHAND BAID

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two petitions have been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging therein the order dtd. 6/1/2025, whereby the applications moved by the plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 14(3) and Order 18 Rule 17 have been rejected vide order dtd. 6/1/2025.

(2.) The facts of the present case are as under:-

(3.) Mr. Arvind Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that on 11/11/2024 when defendant No. 1- Prakash Chand Baid was examined and cross-examined, the agreement dtd. 10/10/2013 was not available on record. He would further submit that the plaintiff obtained the document under the Right to Information Act and the same is relevant for the just adjudication of the case. He would also submit that an application under Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC was also moved to recall the witness so that the plaintiff may put a question relating to the agreement dtd. 10/10/2013. He would contend that for substantial justice, the learned trial Court ought to have allowed the applications moved by the plaintiff. In support of his arguments, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Punit Agrawal Vs. Muralilal and Others, 2020 (3) M.P.L.J. 368; the order passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati in the matter of Velugu Eswaramma and Another Vs. Velugu Shoba Rani, 2019 SCC OnLine AP 14 and the judgment passed by the coordinate bench of this Court in F.A. No 145 of 2005, Harnarayan Sharma Vs. Paras Vaid, dtd. 07/07/2015.