KARMAPA CHARITABLE TRUST Vs. STATE OF SIKKIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned trial Court, by its Order dated 10.02.2020, in Title Suit No.01 of 2017 (Karmapa Charitable Trust and Others v. State of Sikkim and Others), allowed the petition filed by the Respondent No.3 under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'CPC"), thereby permitting the Respondent No.3 to file twelve additional documents at the stage of the said Respondent's evidence, after closure of the evidence of the Plaintiffs and the Respondents No.1 and 2. Aggrieved by this Order, the Petitioners assail it before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India (for short, 'Constitution").

(2.) Respondents No.1 and 2 had no counter-affidavit to file. The counter-affidavit filed by the Respondent No.3 was met by a rejoinder of the Petitioners.

(3.) (i) Advancing his arguments for the Petitioner, learned Senior Counsel canvassed the contention that Order VIII Rule 1A of the CPC requires the Respondent to enter all documents that he bases his defense upon in a list, and to produce it in Court along with the written statement. If the documents that the Respondent seeks to rely on are not in his power and possession, he is to divulge as to who it is with at that time. However, the Respondent No.3 opted to disregard this provision of law. The learned Trial Court, for its part, while allowing the Respondent No.3 to file the additional documents belatedly, it is alleged, failed to appreciate that the discretion vested on it under the provisions of Order VIII Rule A1(3) of the CPC cannot be exercised in a routine manner. That, leave is to be granted only on due consideration of the bona fides of the party, which is non-existent on the part of the Respondent No.3. Calling the attention of this Court to the provisions of Order XVI Rule 1 of the CPC, learned Senior Counsel contended that the provision mandates that parties furnish in Court a list of witnesses whom they propose to call, either to give evidence or to produce documents. That, although the Respondent No.3 had filed his list of witnesses way back on 21.08.2002, the relevance of the witnesses now sought to be examined or the documents sought to be produced were not brought to the notice of either the learned Trial Court or the parties. It was his specific argument that by allowing the petition under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) of the CPC, the interest of the Petitioners herein are being jeopardized as it is a belated and mala fide step taken by the Respondent No.3, when the evidence of the Petitioners' witnesses and that of the Respondents No.1 and 2 have already concluded. Consequently, it tantamounts to a de novo trial where the Petitioners will be deprived of the opportunity of refuting the documents in question, which introduces at this stage an element of surprise in the lis. That, in fact, one of the documents now being relied upon by the Respondent No.3 bears the signature of Shamarpa Rinpoche who has passed on 11.06.2014, thereby, making it an impossibility for the Petitioners to test the authenticity of his signature which would thereby prejudice their case. The Respondent No.3 through the additional documents is now attempting to legitimize the recognition of the Karmapa identified by them and also to resurrect the issue of Tsurphu Labrang in an effort to establish that there was a parallel administration being run by the said entity, when the matter has already been closed by an Order of the learned Trial Court and confirmed by a Judgment of this Court.