IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.20161 of 2011 Musafir Giri & Ors Versus Jadawati Devi & Ors ----------- 02. 22.11.2011 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners have filed this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 01.08.2011 passed by Additional Munsif 1st, Bhabhua in Title Suit No.220 of 1999/97 of 2008 whereby the learned Court below allowed the application filed by the defendant-respondent nos.1 to 3 and 5 to 9 praying therein to exhibit documents mentioned in the application. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that earlier on the application of the defendants many documents were exhibited but the respondents filed successive application praying for exhibiting the documents and by the impugned order dated 01.08.2011, 11 documents have been directed to be marked as exhibit. According to the learned counsel, at such a belated stage when the evidence of the plaintiff has already been closed, the learned Court below could not have allowed the application filed by the defendant-respondent allowing them to produce the documents. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Court below found that the documents are 30 years old documents and some of them are public 2 documents and, therefore, allowed the same to be marked as exhibit and by the impugned order, liberty has been granted to the plaintiff-petitioner to adduce evidence in rebuttal of the said documents. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a decision reported in 2005(5) PLJR 87(Suresh Yadav vs. Ramchandra Yadav) and submitted that after amendment of the C.P.C., the Court cannot permit a party to produce documents after the evidence of the plaintiff has been closed. In (2011) 11 Supreme Court Cases 275(K.K.Velusamy vs. N. Palanisamy), the Apex Court has held that “even after deletion of Order 18 Rule 17A of the C.P.C. by amendment the inherent discretionary powers of the Court has not been taken away. The need for the Court to act in a manner to achieve the ends of justice does not end when arguments are heard and judgment is reserved. If there is abuse of the process of the court, or if interests of justice require the court to do something or take note of something, the discretion to do those things does not disappear merely because the arguments are heard, either fully or partly. The contention that no application should be entertained once the trial or hearing is concluded and the case is reserved for judgment is a sound rule, but not a straitjacket formula. There can always be exceptions in exceptional or extraordinary 3 circumstances, to meet the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of court, subject to the limitation recognised with reference to exercise of power under Section 151 of the Code. It appears that in that case the applications for producing documents were filed before the conclusion of the arguments. The trial court as well as the High Court rejected the application. The order of the High Court was set aside by the Apex Court and held that Order 18 Rule 17A was deleted w.e.f. 01.07.2002 but the deletion does not mean that no evidence can be received at all, after a party closes his evidence. It only means that the amended structure of CPC found no need for such a provision, as the amended Code contemplated little or no time gap between completion of evidence and commencement and conclusion of arguments. There is no specific provision in CPC enabling the parties to reopen the evidence for the purpose of further examination-in-chief or cross-examination. The scope of Section 151 is not a substantive provision which creates or confers any power or jurisdiction on courts. It merely recognizes the discretionary power inherent in every court as a necessary corollary for rendering justice in accordance with law, to do what is “right” and undo what is “wrong”, that is, to do all things necessary to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of its process.” In view of the above facts even if the provision 4 has been deleted, the Court can exercise the discretionary jurisdiction under Section 151 C.P.C. from perusal of the impugned order as stated above, the learned Court below found that the documents produced by the parties are 30 years old and those are required for the determination of the real questions in controversy between the parties. In supervisory jurisdiction, therefore, the sufficiency or otherwise of the reasoning given by the Court below in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 CPC cannot be examined. However, according to the learned counsel, some of the documents which are not public document and are sada documents which could not have been marked as an exhibit is concerned, it is open for the petitioner to raise this question at the time of final hearing as it is well settled principles of law that only because the documents have been received in exhibit the genuineness or otherwise cannot be said to have been accepted by the Court. The relevancy or the genuineness or otherwise of the said documents can always be challenged at the time of final hearing. The liberty has been given to the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner may challenge the genuineness or relevancy of the same at the time of final hearing. With this observation, this writ application is dismissed. Saurabh ( Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.)