Indra Kumrawat & Anr. v. Lakhmi Chand Jain & Anr.

1. This petition impugns an order dated 13.12.13 which dismissed the petitioner’s application under Order 18 Rule 3 CPC seeking to place on record i) a bail bond submitted by the Defendant No.1 on 28.3.2009 before the Court of SEM and ii) a copy of a sale deed dated 25.3.2013 executed in favour of the wife of the Defendant no.2 who is the present petitioner. The bail bond was sought to be filed since Defendant no.1 had denied the signatures on the tenancy agreement i.e. Ex.PW2/1 and the sale deed sought to prove that the defendant had made huge profits by their unauthorized occupation of the suit property which resulted in the trading of immovable property in the name of the wife of the Defendant no.2, who was stated to have no source of income. While considering the contentions of the parties, the Trial Court kept in mind that the suit was 2014:DHC:573 for determination of damages for occupation of premises and not for rendition of accounts of the business which was being run therefrom, therefore the sale deed would not be a relevant document. As regards the bail bond, the handwriting expert was examined at the instance of the defendants’ vide an order dated 1.9.2010. The said expert gave an opinion in favour of the defendants, while admitting that the possibility of an attempt to disguise the signatures in order to hide the identity by Defendant no.1 could not be ruled out. The plaintiffs/petitioners now want the said document to be examined by their own handwriting expert to compare the disputed signatures with the signature on the bail bond. The Trial Court reasoned that neither the bail bond could be placed on record nor could the handwriting expert be examined, since the bail bond was within the knowledge of the plaintiffs as they were parties in the proceedings under Section 107, 151 Cr.P.C. before the Court of learned SEM. Hence, if they wanted to use the bail bond for the purpose of confrontation or admission of signatures, the documents ought to have been filed before the framing of issues and could have confronted it to the defendants’ witnesses during cross-examination. Having failed to take appropriate steps apropos documents and the proof of signatures, the contention which the petitioners/plaintiffs now seek to raise, could not be permitted, at such a late stage. Permitting them to do so would be an unending process. This Court is of the view that a party which knowingly does not press a contention or pursue a possible point of advantage or defence, which may be available to it in law, cannot be permitted to do so and that too at a much later stage. There is a time for everything, the requisite steps must be taken at the opportune time. The stage and window of opportunity for producing the documents was before the framing of issues. Once the chance was knowingly not availed and the vessel of the suit had sailed way out, there could be no turning back of the clock of time. The decision in the impugned order and the reasons therefor are plausible view in law. They do not suffer from any material irregularity warranting the interference of this Court in its revisionary jurisdiction.

2. The petition is without merit and is accordingly dismissed.

NAJMI WAZIRI (JUDGE) JANUARY 29, 2014