9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The judgment addresses the issue of whether an application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act can be entertained at a later stage, including during arguments after the entire trial. Issue 1: Application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act The revision petition under Article 227 was filed to revise an order regarding the application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act for sending signatures for comparison and expert opinion. The court considered inconsistent views taken by different judges on maintaining such applications at a belated stage. The court emphasized that revisional jurisdiction may not be necessary if the trial court's decision based on expert evidence can be corrected in appeal. The petitioner argued that filing such an application after closing evidence amounts to reopening the suit, while the respondent contended that once the trial court exercises discretion, evidence cannot be shut in. The court examined previous judgments where it was held that expert opinion is not conclusive but only a piece of evidence for the court to consider. Issue 2: Previous Cases Considered The court briefly discussed three cases: Kaveti Sarada, Pulaparti Sankuntala Bai, and Guru Govindu. In Kaveti Sarada, the court upheld the objection to a belated application for expert opinion on a pronote. In Pulaparti Sankuntala Bai, the court rejected an application for expert analysis of an agreement of sale after evidence was recorded. In Guru Govindu, the court allowed the filing of an application under Section 45 of the Evidence Act even at the stage of arguments, emphasizing that expert opinion is supporting material and not conclusive. Issue 3: Court's Interpretation and Conclusion The court referred to the Supreme Court's ruling on the effect of the deletion of a proviso to Order 18 Rule 2(4) CPC, emphasizing the court's inherent power to permit parties to produce evidence at a later stage. The court concluded that no fixed time could be set for filing applications under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, leaving it to the discretion of the court based on the exigencies of each case. Quoting Justice Vivian Bose, the court highlighted the procedural nature of the Code of Civil Procedure, designed to facilitate justice without being overly technical. In conclusion, the judgment clarifies the court's discretion in entertaining applications under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, emphasizing the need for flexibility and justice in procedural matters.
|
