RAJEEV KAUL Vs. MANJU KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, wherein, the order dated 18.11.2017, passed in a Money Suit No.20 of 2007 by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, VI, Jamshedpur is under challenge, whereby and whereunder the documents filed by the plaintiff without any affidavit has been allowed to be accepted and date has been fixed for cross-examination of the plaintiff upon the aforesaid documents.

(2.) The brief facts of the case of the petitioners is that the plaintiff/respondent has filed a suit for recovery of damages in terms of law of Tortious liability in which the petitioners/defendants have appeared and filed written statement and thereafter suit has proceeded. The petitioners have filed subsequent list of documents, but, without any affidavit, therefore, an objection was filed by the defendants on the ground that the aforesaid documents may not be accepted, since it has been filed without following the provisions of law, as stipulated under Order 23 Rule 4 (1) read with Order 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure and contrary to Sections 61 to 67 of the Indian Evidence Act and further, the aforesaid documents have been filed after filing of the suit i.e. after 12.06.2007, which cannot be accepted by way of evidence and therefore, the documents filed on 22.04.2013 may be rejected but the trial court after recording the reason to the effect that the said documents have been brought on record with the leave of the court and therefore, even though there was some delay, but, by imposing cost of Rs.5,000/-, the documents have been allowed to be brought on record and has provided an opportunity to the defendants to cross-examine the plaintiff and accordingly, posted the trial for her cross-examination against which the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners/defendants, inter alia, on the ground that the procedure for filing the documents, has been provided under the provision of Order XVIII sub-rule 4, which contains the provision for filing of documents, which is to be filed with the affidavit of examination in chief, but, having not done so, the said document is not admissible.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/respondent has appeared and contested the case by submitting that there is no error in the impugned order, since the documents, which has been sought to be brought on record, has been admitted on record with the leave of the Court, but the order by which, the leave has been recorded, has never been assailed by the petitioners. The petitioners will not be prejudiced in any way, since they have been provided an opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiffs on these documents and, as such, merely on the technicality, since the said documents have not been filed on affidavit, the same is not to be rejected, otherwise, it will be said to be the hyper-technical approach by the trial court and therefore, the Court while rejecting the application of the petitioners, has committed another error for proper adjudication of the issue involved.