Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2013 (2) TMI SC This
Issues Involved:
The appeal against the order of the High Court of Delhi setting aside the Additional District Judge's order and allowing the revision filed by the Respondent. Brief Facts: The Appellant, a proprietorship concern in interior decoration and construction work, and the Respondent, a partnership firm dealing in building materials, had transactions where the Appellant allegedly owed Rs. 4,35,250.18 to the Respondent. Despite demands and legal notices, the outstanding amount was not paid, leading to a suit for recovery. The Respondent filed applications under Order VII Rule 14 and Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to place documents on record and recall a witness for additional evidence, which were dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi. Consideration of Applications: The main point for consideration was whether the Plaintiff had a case for allowing the applications under Order XVIII Rule 17 and Order VII Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The trial Court dismissed the applications, but the High Court set aside this decision, allowing the Plaintiff to file bills and recall a witness, subject to payment of costs. Legal Provisions and Precedents: The judgment referred to relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, including Order VII Rule 14, Order XVIII Rule 17, and Section 151. It also cited the case of Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar v. Sharadchandra Prabhakar Gogate and K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy to establish principles regarding recalling witnesses and additional evidence. Decision and Analysis: The Supreme Court analyzed the facts and legal principles, emphasizing that the power to recall witnesses should be sparingly exercised and not to fill gaps in evidence. Despite the High Court's decision, the Supreme Court found that the Plaintiff's applications were belated and aimed at overcoming deficiencies in its case. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the trial Court's order was restored, allowing the appeal with no costs.
|