( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4520 OF 2008 Anwar Hazi Abdul Rasid Qureshi and another. PETITIONERS VERSUS Mangal w/o Bapurao Kadam RESPONDENT ..... Mr. S.P. Shah, advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S.N. Morampalle, advocate for the respondent. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 15th July, 2009] PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel. 2. The petitioners impugn order dated 13-06-2008, rendered by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Latur, on application (Exh-57) filed by the plaintiff (present respondent) in Special Civil Suit No. 14/2006. 3. The suit is filed by the respondent for recovery of money on basis of cheque. The respondent is a woman. She adduced her own evidence alongwith evidence of one witness. After the parties adduced ( 2 ) their evidence and arguments were heard, the learned Civil Judge closed the case for judgement. Thereafter, the application (Exh-57) was moved by the respondent seeking leave to permit her to give proof of the cheque which was placed on record on earlier date. The learned Civil Judge granted the request subject to costs of Rs. 500/-. 4. There is no dispute about the fact that the cheque was produced on record at a later stage of the trial, but before the arguments were commenced. The respondent referred to the said cheque during her examination-in-chief, but it was not on record and, therefore, was not marked as Exhibit. In other words, the cheque was not proved at all. The respondent submitted that the said cheque was filed in another proceedings and was taken out from the concerned Court after her cross-examination. There cannot be any dispute about the fact that the respondent and her advocate committed negligence while conducting the suit. It is also explicit that after the matter is closed for judgement, there is no stage to further allow any party ( 3 ) to lead evidence or to permit evidence by way of affidavit or filing of documents. The learned advocate for the petitioners would submit that the impugned order is quite arbitrary and perverse. There was no stage of the trial to permit the respondent to adduce further evidence. The learned advocate for the respondent seeks to rely on “Haji Munir Ahmed Mansoori v. State of Maharashtra and others” 2008 (3) ALL MR 62. A Division Bench of this Court held that where application was made after arguments were heard and case was reserved for judgement, the Court has to examine whether the documents sought to be produced have any bearing on the matters in issue and would help the Court in fully and finally adjudicating the matter. It has been held that such application cannot be rejected merely because there was some delay on the part of applicant. The inherent powers available under section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code would justify the action taken by the learned Civil Judge though there is no other provision in the Code of Civil Procedure to allow such kind of production of evidence. One cannot be oblivious of the ( 4 ) complications that may arise if such application is rejected though the request is genuine one. If such suit is dismissed due to technical reasons, particularly, due to absence of proof about the cheque which was placed on record, then the appellate Court will be required to consider the same request under Order-XLI Rule-27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, or such matter may entail remand. In order to shorten the length of litigation and time thereof, the exercise of the inherent powers under section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code by the trial Court cannot be faulted with. It is, however, made clear that the trial Court may allow the respondent/plaintiff to file her affidavit only to the extent of proof of the cheque in question and may permit the petitioners to cross-examine her, if so required and to lead further evidence in rebuttal and other evidence, if prayed for. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/WP4520-08 ( 5 )