IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.115 of 2008 JAGDEO MANDAL Versus JAI PRAKASH SAHU @ JAI PRAKASH SAH & OR ----------- 2 9.7.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court, the impugned order rejecting the prayer of the plaintiff-petitioner for admitting two of the documents into evidence at the stage of argument, does not suffer from any jurisdiction error. The Court below has held that both the documents were well within the knowledge of the plaintiff- petitioner and therefore, the application filed to this effect by the petitioner on 8.10.2007 long after closure of evidence and in fact at the verge of completion of argument, was wholly belated and malafide. In fact, the Court below has also gone into the nature of the documents and has recorded that such documents were well within the knowledge and possession of the plaintiff, petitioner right from the stage of inter-parte proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Such reasons assigned by the Court below would go to show that the plaintiff- petitioner had failed to lead their evidence in time. 2 From the materials on record, it is clear that the plaintiff-petitioner had consumed almost one year in completing his evidence which had commenced on 17.8.2005 and was closed after examining only five witnesses on 24.7.2006 and the documents in question were not filed at that stage nor any reference about them was made either at the time of filing of the suit in the year, 2002 in terms of Order, VII Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure nor even at a time when the issues were framed on 1.8.2005 in terms of Order XIII Rule 1. It has to be remembered that the suit came to be filed only on 2.9.2002 after the amendment in the C.P.C. were already brought into force with effect from 1.7.2002. Thus this Court would find that the petitioner being the plaintiff had failed in their duty to produce the documents at the relevant point of time. The submission on behalf of the counsel for the petitioner that relevance of such documents became necessary only in course of examination of witnesses of defendants, is also to be noticed for its being rejected. The defendants had examined their witnesses between 24.7.2006 to 24.4.2007 and such documents were not filed even in that period. There is no reference in the cross-examination of any witness of the defendants as with regard to the aforementioned documents. In that 3 view of the matter, reliance placed by the learned counsel on a judgment of Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Balwant Kumar and Anr. Vs. Kailash Behl and Anr. reported in AIR 2003 H.P. 48 is also wholly misplaced. The facts of Balwant Kumar’s case were entirely different inasmuch as in that case such documents sought to be produced by the plaintiffs were clearly referable to facts stated in cross-examination of the witnesses produced by the defendants and were thus held to be necessary documents to be produced by plaintiff for rebuttal of stand taken by the defendants. As held above, such is not the facts of the present case. For the same reason, this Court would also find no resemblance of applicability of the ratio of the judgments of Delhi High Court in the case of Prem Sagar Gupta Vs. Smt. Kamlesh Kumari and Anr. reported in AIR 2004 Delhi 136 inasmuch as there also the documents sought to be produced after closure of the evidence of defendants were specifically referable to rebuttal of the evidence of the defendants. In the present case from the application filed by the petitioner in the Court below dated 8.10.2007 (Annexure-1) seeking leave for accepting the two documents for its being exhibited in evidence, it would be clear that not a word was said by the petitioner as to 4 how, what and whose evidence of the defendants such a plea was taken which required rebuttal by those two documents sought to be produced in evidence by the plaintiff-petitioner. Thus the plea of rebuttal as developed by the petitioner before the Court below was also rightly rejected and the impugned order cannot be said to be bad even on that score. The next submission of the counsel for the plaintiff- petitioner that the petitioner even otherwise in fact had a right to adduce evidence in course of reply by way of producing two documents for its being marked as exhibits on the basis of based on his reading of Order XVIII Rule 2(3) C.P.C. is also wholly misplaced. The Order XVIII Rule 2(1) C.P.C. requires a party having a right to begin to state his case and produce his evidence in support of the issues and thereafter under Order XVIII Rule 2 (2) C.P.C. the other party has to state his case and produce his evidence and thereafter that party has to address the Court generally on the whole case. It would mean that after completing evidence of the other side, the other side will begin its argument and taken in that context Order XVIII Rule 2(3) C.P.C. provides that party beginning under Sub- Rule 1 of Rule 2 of Order XVIII C.P.C. would reply on the whole cases. This would suggest that the 5 arguments of the other side will be only replied by the party which had begun adducing the evidence. In the present case, the plaintiff-petitioner had started the proceedings and they had adduced their evidence till 2.4.2006 and thereafter the petitioners, opposite parties had completed their evidence on 24.4.2007 and the defendants had in fact started the argument on 1.5.2007 as has been recorded in the impugned order. The defendants in fact, had completed their arguments and when the petitioner in reply were on the verge of completion of their argument and in fact had already submitted their written submission, such an application came to be filed on 8.10.2007 seeking an opportunity to lead evidence by producing two documents which were also not public documents. These documents in fact were a written statement of the defendants in a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and some plain memorandum of partition. Obviously, if these documents were taken into evidence the whole thing had to start afresh from the stage of leading evidence by both the parties and that could have meant a de novo hearing of the suit. In that view of the matter, the Court below had rightly refused to admit such documents produced by the plaintiff- petitioner in evidence. Such rejection in 6 fact would not amount to any jurisdictional error so as to be interfered by this Court in its jurisdiction under Section 115 C.P.C. That being so, this Court would not find any merit in this application and accordingly the same is dismissed. Bibhash (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)