This is the case wherein the plaintiff after considerable delay i.e. when the matter was adjourned for judgement has filed two application one under Order VII rule 14 for filing certain documents and another application under order XVIII rule 17 to recall the witness pw1 for proving the documents . Finally The same is held not acceptable.
Excerpts from the judgement – M/s. Bagai Construction Thr. Its Proprietor Lalit Bagai Vs. M/s. Gupta Building Material Store – 22 February 2013 by P. SATHASIVAM; JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.
The only point for consideration in this appeal is whether the plaintiff has made out a case for allowing the applications one filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC and another application under Order VII Rule 14 read with Section 151 CPC. The trial Court dismissed both the applications, however, the High Court by the impugned order set aside the order of the trial Court and directed taking on record the bills which are proposed to be filed by the plaintiff, granted permission to recall PW-1 to prove those bills. The High Court passed such order in favour of the plaintiff subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/-.
We are satisfied that the plaintiff has filed those two applications before the trial Court in order to overcome the lacunae in the plaint, pleadings and evidence. It is not the case of the plaintiff that it was not given adequate opportunity. In fact, the materials placed show that the plaintiff has filed both the applications after more than sufficient opportunity had been granted to it to prove its case. During the entire trial, those documents have remained in exclusive possession of the plaintiff, still plaintiff has not placed those bills on record. It further shows that final arguments were heard on number of times and judgment was reserved and only thereafter, in order to improve its case, the plaintiff came forward with such an application to avoid the final judgment against it. Such course is not permissible even with the aid of Section 151 CPC.