2019 (1) TMI 726 - HC - Indian Laws

Principles of natural justice - permission of this Court to file a report by a handwriting expert in rebuttal of the report - Section 151 of CPC - it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that when one of the parties have produced the report of the handwriting expert, then the opportunity should be provided to the other party to produce the report of the handwriting expert in rebuttal - Held that - It is undisputed fact that the application filed by the respondent no.1 for getting thumb impression on the agreement examined from the handwriting expert was allowed by the trial court and accordingly, the report of the handwriting expert has been placed on record. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the trial court cannot take away the right of the petitioner defendant to produce the report of the handwriting expert in rebuttal of the report of the handwriting expert filed by the respondent no.1/plaintiff. This Court is of the considered opinion that the order dated 6/12/2017, so far as it relates to rejection of application under Section 151 of CPC, is hereby set aside - petition allowed.

Issues Involved:

1. Professional Misconduct and Responsibilities of Advocates
2. Adjournments and Delay in Judicial Proceedings
3. Right to Rebuttal Evidence in Civil Proceedings

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Professional Misconduct and Responsibilities of Advocates:

The court emphasized the professional responsibilities of advocates, citing the Supreme Court's definition of "misconduct" and "professional misconduct." Misconduct includes improper or wrong behavior, which in the context of legal practice, would be actions regarded as disgraceful or dishonorable by competent professional peers. The court highlighted that advocates abusing the court process, such as seeking unnecessary adjournments, could be guilty of professional misconduct. The court referenced multiple cases, including *N.G. Dastane Vs. Shrikant S. Shinde* and *R.D. Saxena v. Balram Prasad Sharma*, to underline that such behavior undermines the justice system and the duty of advocates to the court and their clients.

2. Adjournments and Delay in Judicial Proceedings:

The court criticized the frequent and unjustified requests for adjournments, which contribute to delays in the justice delivery system. It cited the Supreme Court's observations in cases like *State of U.P. v. Shambhu Nath Singh* and *Noor Mohammed v. Jethanand*, stressing that adjournments should not be granted lavishly and without due cause. The court noted that such delays erode public confidence in the judicial system and emphasized the duty of all involved, including lawyers, judges, and court officials, to ensure timely justice. The court referenced the Supreme Court's stance that delay in proceedings is akin to a systemic disorder, likening it to a malignancy that needs to be addressed with urgency and responsibility.

3. Right to Rebuttal Evidence in Civil Proceedings:

The court addressed the specific legal issue of whether the petitioner should be allowed to produce a handwriting expert's report in rebuttal to the report submitted by the respondent. The petitioner argued that denying this opportunity would be unjust, especially since the respondent's report had already been accepted by the trial court. The court agreed with the petitioner, referencing the Division Bench judgment in *Usha Sharma (Smt.) Vs. Maharaj Kishan Raina & Another*, which supports the right of a party to present rebuttal evidence. The court concluded that the trial court's order rejecting the petitioner's application under Section 151 of CPC was incorrect and set it aside, allowing the petitioner to submit their handwriting expert's report.

Conclusion:

The petition was allowed, and the trial court was directed to proceed in accordance with the law, ensuring that the petitioner's right to rebuttal evidence is respected. The interim order dated 19/1/2018 was recalled, and the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the court's findings. The court reiterated the importance of advocates fulfilling their duties without seeking unnecessary adjournments and emphasized the collective responsibility of the legal community to maintain the integrity and efficiency of the judicial process.

← Previous Next →