GUWAHATI, India, July 1 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on June 2:

1. Heard Mr. S. Dutta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

2. This is an application filed challenging the order dated 30.09.2024 passed in Misc.(J) Case No.269/2024 arising out of Title Suit No.33/2010 whereby an application file under Order VII Rule 14(3) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the Code') was allowed by the learned Trial Court thereby granting leave to adduce evidence in respect to the Sale Deed No.749 dated 05.08.2005 and Sale Deed No.950 dated 13.12.2005.

3. This Court finds it relevant to take note of that at paragraph No.5 of the plaint in Title Suit No.33/2010, the plaintiff had duly mentioned about the registered Sale Deed No.749 dated 05.08.2005 as well as the registered Sale Deed No.950 dated 13.12.2005 whereby it is also seen that the plaintiff had claimed the title on the basis of the said two Deeds of Sale. However, in the written statement filed by the defendants who are in the petitioner herein, there is no specific denial as regards the existence of the said Deeds of Sale.

4. The records reveal that at the stage of arguments of the suit, an application was filed by the plaintiff under Order VII Rule 14(3) read with Section 151 of the Code seeking leave to produce additional documents. At paragraph No.3 of the said application, it was stated that the said Deeds of Sale were not produced in the course of the proceedings presumably due to oversight of the then engaged counsel and the said deficiency was only discovered by the newly engaged counsel who had entered appearance on behalf of the plaintiff. By the said application, the plaintiff therefore sought for leave to adduce evidence of the said two Deeds of Sale by re-examination of PW1. These facts which were stated in the application were not denied by the petitioners who were the defendants in the suit by filing objection although they duly received a copy of the said application filed on 09.08.2024.

5. It is further relevant to take note of that the learned Trial Court had granted the opportunity to the petitioners to file objection on 30.08.2024. On 30.08.2024, the petitioners who were the defendants did not file any objection, and subsequently after hearing the parties, the learned Trial Court passed the impugned order dated 30.09.2024 whereby the said application filed by the plaintiff was allowed. It is under such circumstances, the present proceedings have been filed.

6. This Court has duly taken note of that the learned Trial Court though was adjudicating an application under Order VII Rule 14 (3) of the Code, but in fact, the order so passed was in terms with Section 151 of the Code taking into account that what the learned Trial Court permitted was allowing the plaintiff to adduce additional evidence that too at the stage of the arguments.

7. This Court has also taken note of the grounds assigned by the learned Trial Court in its impugned order whereby the application was allowed. The grounds so assigned by the learned Trial Court does not shock and surprise this Court to exercise the supervisory jurisdiction.

8. Be that as it may, as this is not a case by which the Court had exercised the powers under Order VII Rule 14(3) or even under Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code, but rather it was a permission being granted to adduce additional evidence under Section 151 of the Code by the learned Trial Court, it is the opinion of this Court that the learned Trial Court ought to have permitted the additional evidence subject to cross-examination of the witness adducing the additional evidence and further permitted rebuttal evidence to the defendants/petitioners herein.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=A9S7c5LDIsB6RXaCf816xyVnOhEsTxITk%2FN4MTm1dR1xazp9MhbGqyUIqBVIta%2FN&caseno=CRP(IO)/144/2025&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010075292025&state_code=6&appFlag==)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.