Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2011 (3) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (3) TMI 1803 - SC - Indian LawsApplications for reopening/recalling of evidence - Powers of the trial court or the High court for exercise of discretion u/s 151 or Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code - when the arguments were in progress, the appellant filed two applications. The first application was filed u/s 151 of the Code with a prayer to reopen the evidence for the purpose of further cross-examination of Plaintiff (PW1) and the attesting witness (PW2). second application was filed under O18 R17 of the Code for recalling PWs.1 and 2 for further cross examination. it was necessary to reopen the evidence and further cross-examine PW1 and PW2 with reference to the said admissions (electronically recorded evidence) to demonstrate that the agreement of sale was only a security for the loan. It is stated that the Compact Disc containing the recording of the said conversations was produced along with the said applications. The respondent resisted the said applications. The trial court held that as the evidence of both parties was concluded and the arguments had also been heard in part, the applications were intended only to delay the matter. Therefore, dismissed and HC on the same reasons given by trial court dismissed the said application. The said order is challenged in these appeals by special leave. HELD THAT:- The appellant - defendant has taken a consistent stand in his reply notice, written statement and evidence that the agreement of sale was executed to secure a loan of ₹ 150,000, as the respondent insisted upon execution and registration of such agreement. If after the completion of recording of evidence, PW1 and PW2 had admitted during conversations that the amount paid was not advance towards sale price, but only a loan and the agreement of sale was obtained to secure the loan, that would be material evidence which came into existence subsequent to the recording of the depositions, having a bearing on the decision and will also clarify the evidence already led on the issues. According to the appellant, the said evidence came into existence only on 27.10.2008 and 31.10.2008, and he prepared the applications and filed them at the earliest, that is on 11.11.2008. As defendant could not have produced this material earlier and if the said evidence, if found valid and admissible, would assist the court to consider the evidence in the correct perspective or to render justice, it was a fit case for exercising the discretion u/s 151 of the Code. In view of the above, these appeals are allowed in part. The orders of the High Court and Trial Court dismissing u/s 151 of the Code are set aside. The orders are affirmed in regard to the dismissal under O18 R17 of the Code.
|