: 1 : IN IN IN THE THE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER CHAMBER CHAMBER SUMMONS SUMMONS SUMMONS NO.831 OF 2008 NO.831 OF 2008 NO.831 OF 2008 IN IN IN SUIT SUIT SUIT NO.242 NO.242 NO.242 OF 1989 OF 1989 OF 1989 Krishna Ray Kamathh .. Plaintiff. Versus Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. .. Defendants. Mr.D.Brijesh for the plaintiff. Mr.R.C.Dubey i/b.Sanjeev Kanchan for the defendants. CORAM CORAM CORAM : : : R.Y. GANOO, J. R.Y. GANOO, J. R.Y. GANOO, J. DATE DATE DATE : 8th July, 2008. : 8th July, 2008. : 8th July, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Evidence affidavit in the nature of examination-in-chief was filed and taken on record and attended to by my learned Predecessor on 30.4.2008. The examination-in-chief of the plaintiff was treated as closed and defendant No.1 sought time to conduct the cross-examination and hence the matter was adjourned to 12.6.2008. This happened on 30.4.2008. 2. After this, the plaintiff has taken out the present chamber summons and by the present chamber summons, the plaintiff wants that certain documents in the nature of books of accounts and the relevant entries therein should be produced on behalf of the plaintiff as documents in support of the case of the plaintiff. In this connection, it is required to be mentioned that the : 2 : learned Advocate for the plaintiff admitted that he has not filed affidavit of documents. This will go to show that the plaintiff was not inclined to rely upon these documents right from the beginning. In the list of documents, annexed to evidence affidavit, the documents in question were not annexed and the explanation given by the plaintiff is that this happened inadvertently. The plaintiff seeks to have the additional documents brought before the Court and he seeks indulgence and wants to have a discretionary order in favour of the plaintiff. 3. Learned Advocate for the defendants contended that there is no provision in the scheme of recording of evidence by affidavits that is to say to take on record documents once the examination-in-chief is over. 4. I have considered the rival submissions. I am inclined to accept the argument advanced by learned Advocate for the defendants. This is a case where the examination-in-chief was over. The plaintiff had availed of opportunity to rely upon the documents at the time of examination-in-chief and include them in the list of documents on which the plaintiff wanted to rely. In my view, once the stage of examination-in-chief is over, the plaintiff would not be able to bring on record additional documents by contending that the same remained to be brought on record inadvertently. In my view, the : 3 : explanation given by the plaintiff cannot be accepted and in any case, in the absence of appropriate provision of law, the request made by the plaintiff cannot be accepted. There is one more reason against the plaintiff, namely, the plaintiff have not filed affidavit of documents. If in the affidavit of documents, the documents in question could have been included possibly, the case of the plaintiff would have been considered favourably. 5. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, the chamber summons cannot be granted. I am not inclined to saddle the plaintiff with costs of the chamber summons. Hence the order : O R D E R R D E R R D E R a) Chamber summons dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 6. Suit is adjourned to 30.7.2008 for cross-examination of the plaintiff’s witness/es on behalf of the defendants. (R.Y.GANOO, (R.Y.GANOO, (R.Y.GANOO, J.) J.) J.)