9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Application to adduce evidence for registration of partnership business. 2. Rejection of the application based on the amended Code of Civil Procedure. 3. Interpretation of Rule 17-A of Order 18 before and after amendments. 4. Comparison of provisions of Order 7, Rule 14 before and after amendments. 5. Effect of the omission of Rule 17-A of Order 18 and insertion of Sub-rule (3) to Rule 14 of Order 7. 6. Jurisdiction to allow production of documentary evidence not presented with the plaint. Analysis: 1. The plaintiff, a registered partnership firm, filed a suit seeking a decree against the defendant for a sum of money. The plaintiff did not file the Firm Registration Certificate with the plaint. An application was made during the trial to adduce evidence regarding the registration, which was rejected by the trial court. 2. The trial court based its decision on the amended Code of Civil Procedure, stating that the new provisions do not allow for the production of evidence not disclosed at the time of presenting the plaint. The court referred to the omission of Order 18, Rule 17-A by Amendment Act 46 of 1999, which came into effect from 1-7-2002. 3. Rule 17-A of Order 18, inserted in 1976, allowed parties to produce evidence not within their knowledge at a later stage with the court's permission. However, this rule was omitted by Amendment Act 46 of 1999. The court discussed the implications of this omission on the production of evidence during the trial. 4. The provisions of Order 7, Rule 14 required the plaintiff to produce documents relied upon when presenting the plaint. Amendments made in 2002, specifically Sub-rule (3) to Rule 14 of Order 7, introduced new requirements for the production of documents during the trial. 5. The court highlighted the changes brought about by the amendments, emphasizing that even though Rule 17-A of Order 18 was omitted, the plaintiff could still tender documents in evidence with the court's permission under the new provisions of Order 7, Rule 14, Sub-rule (3). 6. The court concluded that the rejection of the plaintiff's application solely based on the omission of Rule 17-A was incorrect. It held that documents not presented with the plaint could still be tendered in evidence with the court's leave under the amended provisions. The impugned order was set aside, and the plaintiff's application was allowed, emphasizing the jurisdiction to grant such permissions. This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the issues involved and the court's interpretation of the relevant legal provisions before and after the amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure.
|
