PRABHA P SHARMA Vs. SAMAJIK EKTA SAMITI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner impugns the order dated 27th March, 1998 whereby the Appeal preferred by the Petitioner was dismissed. While dismissing the appeal the Respondent no. 3 proceeded on the footing that the Petitioner was unable to show sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal while holding that the delay could not be condoned relied on the document at Serial No. 10 of the list of documents dated 11th Dec., 1996 filed by the Respondents. It is contended on behalf of the Petitioner that by her reply dated 1st April, 1997 the Petitioner had opposed taking on record the said document as arguments had already been concluded. It is further contended that the Tribunal did not dispose off the said objection but on the contrary has allowed the said document and relied on the same.

(2.) At this stage it would not be possible to consider the genuineness of the document. The Petitioner in reply dated 1st April 1997 to the application of Respondents dated 11th Dec., 1996 had alleged that the documents were forged and/or fabricated. In these circumstances as the Appellant had opposed the production of the said document, if the 3rd Respondent was inclined to accept the said document then had to either pass an order taking on record the said document and/or give opportunity to the Petitioner to meet the contents of the said document. From the impugned order it is seen the 3rd Respondent has relied on the said document for coming to the conclusion arrived at both on the point of limitation as well as on merits.

(3.) It is a cardinal principle of the rule of natural justice, that where documents are to be used against a party, not only must the party be given a copy of the document but an opportunity to meet the said document. In the instant case the Petitioner had opposed production of the said document as it was sought to be produced after arguments were heard. In these circumstances, the 3rd Respondent either ought to have passed an order admitting or rejecting the document and if admitted ought to have given opportunity to the Petitioner to meet the contents of the said document, if they so desired. There has been failure to do so. In my opinion, therefore on that count itself the Petition is liable to be allowed.