1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 158/2010 (BILT Graphic Paper Products Ltd. ..vs.. Pawan Radheshyam Nalotia) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri R.W.Joshi, Advocate, for Petitioner Shri M.P.Khajanchi, Advocate, for Respondent CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : JANUARY 18, 2010 Heard. In a suit for recovery of amount with interest, the present petitioner/defendant while cross examining the plaintiff, put him certain questions in relation to proof of delivery of goods. The said questions, therefore, relating to delivery memos or challans and hence, respondent/plaintiff produced those delivery challans with application seeking leave to file documents. By another application, respondent /plaintiff sought his own recall to prove those documents. Both the applications are allowed by the trial Court by impugned order. Advocate Joshi by placing reliance upon the judgment of 2009 (5) Mh.L.J. 142 [Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar vs. Sharadchandra Prabhakar Gogate] contends that such leave which has the effect of filling in lacunae could not have been granted. He 2 points out that the documents were well within the knowledge of respondent/plaintiff and in view of denial in written statement, the documents ought to have been produced. The respondent/plaintiff started leading evidence without producing those documents and hence, now cannot be permitted to turn back. He points out that provisions of Order 18, Rule 17 are held to be like a power of review under Section 47 of C.P.C. He contends that in such circumstances absence of any prejudice to petitioner/defendant in the matter is not the test at all. Advocate Khajanchi on the other hand argues that the plaint gave necessary details and there was simple denial. Because of long business between the parties brought over about 5 years, as the necessary details were given in the plaint, the documents i.e. delivery challans/bills were not produced on record. When in cross examination it become clear that even delivery of goods was in dispute, documents were sought to be filed. He contends that looking to the nature of controversy, the trial Court in the interest of justice has allowed both the applications and no interference is warranted. The perusal of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court shows that though after the evidence was over, recall was sought and that recall was only to fill in lacunae which came on record during such cross examination. 3 Here, the perusal of plaint shows that the fact of supply has been pleaded and in paragraph 16 while giving the details of claim, billwise details with amount therefor are also given. There is no express denial of receipt of goods by the petitioner/defendant in its written statement. In this situation, when in cross examination, for the first time, the petitioner/ defendant raised the question about delivery challans/ memos, the respondent/plaintiff thought it proper to produce the same. The Court below who was hearing the evidence also found it proper in the interest of justice to grant such opportunity. It is apparent that mere production of such documents could not have been helpful to decide the controversy looking to its nature. Hence, the Court below also granted leave to plaintiff to recall itself. I, therefore, do not find any jurisdictional error or perversity in the approach of trial Court. No case is made out warranting any interference in writ Jurisdiction. Writ petition is, therefore, disposed of. No order as to costs. JUDGE Rvjalit