Case BriefsHigh Courts

Patna High Court: The Bench of Prabhat Kumar Jha, J. dismissed a petition filed against an order allowing production of additional documents.

Petitioner herein filed an eviction suit against one Rajendra Mistri, which was decreed in his favour. Respondents herein (who are widow and sons of Rajendra Mistri) filed an appeal against the said decree along with an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for bringing additional documents on record. The said application was allowed by the learned District Judge. Aggrieved thereby, the instant petition was filed.

The Court noted that respondents were not aware of the pendency of the eviction suit filed by the petitioner. Rajendra Mistri, who was contesting the suit, became traceless in the middle of hearing, and the suit was decided without allowing the defendant to produce any documentary evidence as the fact of him being traceless could not be brought to the knowledge of the court. When the suit was decreed, his legal heirs got knowledge about this fact and filed an appeal along with a petition stating that they had no knowledge about the pendency of the suit. They also filed an application for adducing additional documents which had a bearing on merits of the case. On consideration of these facts, the learned District Judge allowed their petition for adducing additional evidence

Order 41 Rule 27(1)(b) of CPC clearly envisages that party seeking to produce additional evidence, must establish that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by him at the time when the decree appealed against was passed. It was held that respondents’ case clearly fell within the purview of said provision and thus there was no infirmity in the impugned order.[Vijay Kumar Singh v. Soni Kuer, 2018 SCC OnLine Pat 2292, Order dated 06-12-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. disposed of a petition filed in a matrimonial dispute by allowing the petitioner (wife) to prove additional documents in the matter of an application seeking maintenance from the respondent (husband) under Section 125 CrPC.

Earlier, the trial court had dismissed the wife’s application on the ground that she was not able to establish that she withdrew from the society of her husband for a reasonable cause. The trial court noticed that no evidence was placed on record to substantiate the allegations of cruelty against the husband made by the wife.

R.K. Narang, Advocate for the wife prayed to prove copies of several complaints made to various authorities and also medical records showing injuries caused by the husband. It was submitted that these documents, which were not available with the wife during the trial, had now been obtained from the authorities concerned. Per contra, Akhilesh Kr Singh, Advocate appearing for the husband submitted that the complaints were false and frivolous.

Keeping in view the entirety of the case, the High Court set aside the impugned judgment of the trial court. The wife was granted an opportunity to file and prove the additional documents before the trial court. She was also permitted to summon the record from the authorities where original of such documents may be available. As, consequently, trial court’s order fixing interim maintenance stood received. [Beena Kumari v. Manoj Kumar, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 7237, dated 21-02-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Jammu & Kashmir High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Sanjay Kumar Gupta, J., dismissed a criminal revision petition filed against the order of the appellate court whereby petitioner’s application under Section 391 of Criminal Procedure Code, for recording additional evidence, was dismissed.

The main issue that arose before the Court was whether the appellate court had rightly rejected the application of the petitioner under Section 391 of CrPC.

The Court observed that from bare perusal of Section 391 of CrPC, it becomes clear that production of additional evidence can be permitted in case of failure of justice. However, this power conferred upon criminal court should be exercised sparingly and hence an application under Section 391 of CrPC should be decided objectively, just to cure the irregularity. This power cannot be exercised to fill the lacuna. Further, the Court also observed that as per Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (N.I. Act), the onus to prove that the cheque was not received by the bank in furtherance of discharging a liability rests upon the drawer of the cheque and not the payee. There is no law which prescribes that in the negotiable instrument, the entire body of the instrument shall be written only by the maker or drawer of the instrument, i.e. even if it is written by some other person and signed by the drawer, then that signature would be sufficient to hold the drawer liable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act in case if it is dishonoured.

The Court held that in the present case the petitioner had accepted the fact that it was his signature on the cheque and hence there was no need to send the cheque to a handwriting expert. Further, the onus of proving that the cheque was not given to the payee in the discharge of a liability, rested upon the petitioner and the petitioner failed to prove the same. Hence, the revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the order of the appellate court was upheld.[Davinder Singh v. Kiran Pargal,2018 SCC OnLine J&K 740, order dated 17-10-2018]