HARDYAL SINGH Vs. KAMLINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . This civil revision is filed by the petitioner, who is defendant in the suit, assailing the order of an Additional District Judge dated 21.7.2000 by which he has allowed the plaintiff to produce some documents at the belated stage subject to payment of Rs.250.00 as cost.

(2.) . The respondent, has filed a civil suit for recovery of money and rendition of account against her father which is now posted before the Additional District Judge for recording evidence. An application under Order 13 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was filed by her for permission to file certain documents, details of which have been given in para 2 of the application. In the application it was stated that the case was taken up for trial on 27.1.2000 when the Attorney-cum-Advocate for the plaintiff offered himself for re-examination on the questions raised by the counsel for the defendant. During the cross-examination of the plaintiff (Pw1) she wanted to submit some documents for clarification of certain facts which was objected to on behalf of the defendant on the ground that an application for it had not been filed. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed the application and wanted to place on record the photo copies of the letters of the defendant dated 6.12.1974 and 8.10.1978 addressed to the plaintiff and her husband, photo copies of the income-tax returns of the plaintiff filed by the defendant for the assessment years 1978-79 upto 1982-83, income-tax returns for the assessment year 1983-84 to 1984-85 filed by the chartered accountant of the plaintiff after 1984 and also balance sheet for the year 1992-93, photo copy of the correspondence exchanged between income-tax department and the chartered accountant in respect of the income tax assessment for the assessment year 1981-82 onwards upto the assessment year 1985-86, photo copy of the insurance premium in respect of policies no.24694604, 24696751 upto the year 1991-92, photo copy of the undertaking given by the defendant on 26.10.1984. any other document which might become necessary after the evidence of the defendant was recorded. It was alleged that the photo copies of documents mentioned at s.no.1,3 and 7 Were being filed as the originals were despatched by the plaintiff from London and that they would be submitted after they were received back. It was further submitted that original of documents at s.no.2,4,5 and 6 were with Income-tax Department and true copies thereof had been obtained by the chartered accountant who would authenticate the same when called as a witness. These documents were very relevant to establish the true facts. The documents mentioned at s.no.1,2 and 3 will prove the true financial status of the defendant vis-a-vis the financial position of the plaintiff during the relevant period and will also prove the extent to which the defendant/petitioner had misused the power of attorney given by the plaintiff. The documents from s.no.4 to 6 will prove that the defendant had failed to discharge his obligations faithfully under the power of attorney. Me had created problem and Financial ' liability for the plaintiff and those documents would also prove that the plaintiff continued paying premium for these polices right upto maturity though the defendant had stopped paying any premium after 1982-83 and he had also not handed over the policies to the plaintiff. Further, the documents at s.no.7 will depict the true financial position of the plaintiff and her family vis-a-vis the defendant. The plaintiff also sought leave of the court to file list of certain witnesses since the order on the prayer is not assailed in this petition, the facts relating to that need not be stated here. It was prayed that the plaintiff may be allowed to file the documents and permitted to examine the witnesses.

(3.) . This application was strongly opposed by the defendant. It was contended that the provision of law which was being invoked for obtaining the relief in the application had not been mentioned. The application was a malafide attempt of the plaintiff to circumvent the law and cause prejudice to the defendant. Therefore, it should be dismissed. The suit was filed by the plaintiff sometime in March 1985. whatever documents that were relied upon by the plaintiff were filed at the time of the filing of the suit. Documents which were not filed till the date of the settlement of the issues could not be permitted to be filed now. The pleadings were complete and the case was proceeding for trial and recording of the evidence for several years. The instant application had been filed after about 15 years of the filing of the suit and no explanation whatsoever had been given by the plaintiff for this gross delay. The application deserved to be dismissed for this reason also. After the cross-examination of the plaintiff the present application was filed in order to fill in the lacunae in the evidence of the plaintiff. The plaintiff wanted to file some documents which were admittedly in her power and possession right from the beginning. She wanted to file forged documents amongst others the alleged undertaking of the defendant which was forged. The court could not assist a party whose conduct was tainted and malafide. If the application was considered to be under Order 13 Rule 2 CPC the plaintiff was required to plead and establish good cause for non-production of the documents on or before the settlement of the issues. The plaintiff had not offered any explanation for the late production of these documents. No reason had been given why these documents could not be filed with the plaint or before the settlement of the issues. The documents were also not relevant to the present controversy. If the documents were allowed to be filed it would cause gross prejudice and injustice to the defendant. The statement of the plaintiff was recorded and her allegation that her attorney had offered himself for re-examination had no meaning in law. It was opposed by the defendant. The plaintiff could not substitute a witness for the purposes of re-examination. Re-examination under law could be of the same person whose statement was recorded earlier. The plaintiff was also seeking two distinct reliefs in the application and for this reason also the application was not maintainable. The application was also not supported by affidavit. It was denied that the defendant had ever misused the power of attorney executed in his favour by the plaintiff. It was prayed that the application should be dismissed with exemplary cost.