Prafullya Goswami vs Lakhan Goswami (deleted)

Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J

Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

Petitioners are the defendants and are aggrieved by the order dated 12.02.2024 (Annexure-5) passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)-I, Jamtara in Original Suit No.59 of 2015 by which the petition filed under Order VIII, Rule 1A (3) CPC seeking leave of Court to adduce into evidence certain documents on behalf of the defendants just after the evidence of the plaintiff has been dismissed.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners /defendants that the documents which the party(s) seeks to bring on record are all public documents and could not be filed along with the written statement as they were misplaced and could not be traced earlier.

The documents as per the list are as under :-

I. Order dated 20.04.2010 passed by the Court of Sub Judge No.1, Jamtara in T.S. Suit No.84 of 1989;

II. Decree Sheet dated 01.05.2010 in T.S. Suit No.84 of 1989 of the Court of Sub Judge No.1, Jamtara;

III. Joint petition of compromise filed before the Court of Sub Judge No.1, Jamtara in T.S. Suit No.84 of 1989 by plaintiff-Mamatabala Dasi on the one side and Defendants Prafullya Gossain and Atul Gossain;

IV. Original Plaint of T.S. Suit No.84 of 1989 filed by Sreemati Mamata Bala Devi;

V. Original Written Statements of Defendant No.01, Prafullya Gossain filed in T. S. Suit No.84 of 1989;

It is argued that these documents are relevant and will not prejudice the plaintiff. It is argued that the provisions under Order VIII Rule 1A CPC is not mandatory in nature in view of the ratio laid down in Sugandhi (Dead) by L.Rs. and Ors. Vs. P. Rajkumar passed in Civil Appeal No.3427 of 2020 (arising out of SLP [C] No.16491 of 2019).

Learned counsel for the Opp. Parties / plaintiffs submits that not a single explanation for the delay has been given in the petition seeking leave to file these documents and the plaintiffs will be prejudiced as the evidence of the plaintiffs has been closed and will have no opportunity to rebut the same.

Having considered the submissions, this court is of the view that provision under Order VIII Rule 1-A CPC is not mandatory in nature, and for the end of justice, provision has been made under sub-rule (3),to permit such documents to be adduced into evidence which could not be filed at inception.

Impugned order is set aside and the instant CMP stands allowed subject to the conditions that the plaintiffs will be given opportunity to rebut the evidence led on behalf of the defendants as per law.