LALWANI & SONS Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner/plaintiff would assail the legality and validity of the order passed by the trial Court refusing to allow his application under Order 7, Rule 14 (3) CPC seeking leave to submit documents.

(2.) The plaintiff has filed the present suit on 9.11.2012 seeking recovery of Rs.21,18,500/- along with interest @ 18% per annum on the averments that the plaintiff is a Coal Trader whereas the defendants are transporter and are also manufacturers of bricks in bulk quantity for which they need coal as raw material. The defendants purchased 2793.270 MT of coal from the plaintiff on credit. The purchases were made on different dates as detailed in Schedule-I. The purchase made on 24.3.2012 vide DO No.121384 weighing 500 MT is mentioned in Schedule-II with the plaint. For the purchase made in Schedule-I, the defendants paid only Rs.58,05,000/-. Thus a sum of Rs.20,30,046/- remained unpaid. For the purchase made in the year 2012-13, the defendants paid Rs.17,14,700/-. Thus, in all, as against purchase of Rs.93,64,901/-, the defendants paid Rs.75,19,700/- and the balance amount of Rs.18,45,201/- remained unpaid. Since despite exchange of legal notice and reply the amount remained unpaid, the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery. The defendants denied the plaint averments and are contesting the suit.

(3.) When the suit is fixed for evidence, the plaintiff examined PW-1 Kalyan Das Lalwani on 16.1.2015. On 25.1.2016, the plaintiff moved the subject application under Order 7, Rule 14 (3) of the CPC seeking leave to submit documents for reliance during trial on the ground that the subject documents in the nature of cash/credit memo, audit report pertaining to subject transaction are necessary to be filed because the same could not be produced as it was not felt necessary upon reading of the defendants' reply to the legal notice. However, since PW-1 Kalyan Das Lalwani has been cross-examined on these aspects, the documents appear to be necessary. It was also stated in the application that the documents were in possession of the plaintiff from the very beginning but his lawyer did not advise him to produce the same. The defendants objected to the introduction of documents on the ground that they are highly belated and have been so filed to fill up the lacunae in its case.