Sutlej Construction Ltd vs Tenughat Vidhyut Nigam Ltd. ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 4772 Jhar

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                           C.M.P. No. 179 of 2020
                                       ------

              Sutlej Construction Ltd.        .... .... .... Petitioner
                                          Versus

1.Tenughat Vidhyut Nigam Ltd. through its Chairman, Doranda, Ranchi

2.General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, Tenughat Thermal Power Station, Lalpania, Bokaro.

3.Superintending Engineer (Civil-I), Tenughat Thermal Power Station, Lalpania, Bokaro.

4. Superintending Engineer (Civil-I), Tenughat Thermal Power Station, Lalpania, Bokaro. .... .... Opposite Parties ..........

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY .............

For the Petitioner : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Rohitashya Roy, Advocate Mr. Vibhor Mayank, Advocate For the Opp. Parties: Mr. A.K. Mehta, Advocate ............

12/ 29.11.2022. Instant CMP has been filed for quashing the order dated 04.02.2020 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Commercial Court, Ranchi in Commercial Case No.25 of 2005, whereby and whereunder the petition dated 05.11.2019 to accept the office copies of documents dated 31.10.1992, 05.11.1992, 12.11.1992 & 07.04.1993 and marked them exhibits, has been rejected.

2. The petitioner is the plaintiff in Original Suit which was registered as Money Suit No.448 of 1995 and later on after creation of Commercial Court, re-numbered as Commercial Case No.25 of 2005.

3. The petitioner initiated the suit for money decree of 34,19,02,022.00 along with interest @ 24% per annum. The agreement executed was numbered as F2- 37/84-85(E )Civil dated 04.06.1984.

4. The original contesting defendants appeared and filed show cause on 21.03.1996 in which the letters sought to be adduced into evidence was not denied. In the written statement in para 32, it was admitted.

5. The original contesting defendants before the Court below in para 38 of the written statement, admitted these letters. After creation of State of Jharkhand, the suit was transferred to the State of Jharkhand and now it is pending before the Commercial Court, Ranchi.

6. After transfer of case, the name of Bihar State Electricity Board (defendant No.1) and TVNL, Patna (defendant No.2) have been struck off and the name of

present opposite parties, in the civil miscellaneous petition, have been substituted as defendants.

7. It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of petitioner that Managing Director cum Chairman of the petitioner's company has proved these documents which have been marked as Exhibit 6-16/C but during course of argument, it was found that these documents were not on record, therefore petition dated 05.11.2019 was filed with these letters, with a prayer to mark them as exhibit which has been rejected. Hence, this petition.

8. On perusal of impugned order, it appears that learned Court below has rejected the petition principally on the ground that both parties are supposed to produce the documents at the time of filing of plaint or at the time of filing of written statement. After lapse of such a long time, documents have been sought to be adduced into evidence at a belated stage.

9. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in the written statement filed on behalf of opposite parties/defendants, the existence of these letters have been admitted. It is also submitted that defendant witness No.8 in para 25, defendant witness No.3 in para 19, have also admitted these letters. It is therefore contended that the existence of these documents have been specifically pleaded in the plaint, and admitted by the original defendants and also by witnesses examined on behalf of defendants.

10. It is submitted on behalf of the opposite parties that these documents have been produced at a belated stage without any proper explanation for the delay. Now they are trying to introduce these infructuous documents which are beyond pleadings as well as never brought on record, till date even after the matter was re- registered as Commercial Case. Ample opportunity has been granted for bringing any document on record, but only at the stage of argument, they are trying to get these documents which has neither been adduced into evidence.

Reliance has been placed on behalf of petitioner in the case of Raj Process Equipments & Systems Pvt. Ltd. & Others Versus Honest Derivatives Pvt. Ltd. & Others reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 928.

11. I find that the documents which have been rejected by the learned court below, part of it have not only been marked as Exhibits-16 Series, but also there is specific reference to these letters in Para-35 of the plaint. They are not beyond the pleadings and there are specific averments with respect to these letters and the defendants have also admitted the existence of these letters in Para-32 of the

written statement by the original defendants. In Para-38 of the written statement filed by the present defendant(s)/ Opp. Party(s), the existence of these letters have not been denied. Mere delay cannot be a ground to reject an evidence which is otherwise admissible. Learned counsel in support of his submission has relied upon the judgment rendered in the case of Levaku Pedda REddamma & Ors. Vs. Gottumukkala Venkata Subbamma & Anr., passed in Civil Appeal No.4096 of 2022 @ SLP [C] No.7452/2022.

12. Learned counsel for the Opp. Parties while opposing the prayer submits that those defendants, who were earlier there on record, have been substituted and now these opposite parties have filed their own written statement, in which existence of these letters have not been decreed, but those letters were not written to these defendants. It is further submitted that all these documents which the plaintiff(s) seeks to adduce into evidence is incomplete as not properly signed.

13. The admissibility of a document, proof of a document and its effect are three distinct matters. The admissibility depends upon its relevancy and in civil cases, it is to be seen whether such documents sought to be adduced into evidence are beyond the pleadings of the parties. Here, there is specific reference of these letters and it appears that part of the letters had also been proved which have been marked as Exhibit-16 series. Under the circumstances, the letters which do constitute foundation of the claim of the plaintiff(s) cannot be brushed aside merely on the ground of delay. The delay of this case is self-evident from the fact that earlier the suit was filed on 04.11.1995 before Patna and after reorganization of the State, it was transferred and re-registered as well as renumbered in Ranchi. A new set of defendants replaced the old defendants and fresh written statement was filed.

Considering the submissions, the order dated 04.02.2020 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Commercial Court, Ranchi in Commercial Case No.25 of 2005 is hereby set aside. The plaintiff(s) is allowed to formally prove the documents, but not more than two adjournments will be allowed by the learned court below.

The instant CMP is allowed, subject to payment of cost Rs.10,000/- before the Advocates' Sports Club, Jharkhand High Court [Acct. No.495810110005600 and AFSCI Code BK100004958].

Sandeep/                                     (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)