Bhola Ram v. Sarban Ram

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shyam Kishore Sinha For the Respondent/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER 4 30-11-2012 Heard Mr. Shyam Kishore Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 25.8.2009 passed by the learned Munsif, Masaurhi, District- Patna in T.S. No. 90 of 1995 whereby the learned court below has been pleased to allow the application of the defendant for recall of the order of closure of the evidence dated 17.5.2008 for the purpose of 2 Patna High Court CWJC No.6656 of 2012 (4) dt.30-11-2012 adducing evidence which, according to the defendant, could not be inadvertently marked. The sole ground on which the order impugned has been questioned by Mr. Sinha is that there is variance in the copy of the application dated 6.6.2009 as served upon the plaintiff placed at Annexure-1 and the copy filed before the learned Court, which is placed at Annexure-3. It is stated that whereas Annexure-1 does not contain the details of the order of closure of the evidence, the date of the order has been incorporated in the copy filed before the Court which amounts to interpolation. It is further submitted that as the matter is posted for argument hence there is attempt to delay the proceeding. I have heard Mr. Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and perused the materials available on record. On perusal of the order impugned, it is manifest that the evidence of the defendant was closed on 17.5.2008 and the matter was fixed for argument. The order impugned further manifests that the defendant had filed a document on 11.3.2005, which is much prior to closure of the evidence but the same was not marked during the course of the defendant’s evidence. It is in the said back ground that an application was filed on 06.6.2009 by the defendant praying for recall of the order dated 17.5.2008 and for allowing the defendant to mark the said document as an exhibit. No doubt, there is variance in the copy of the application dated 06.6.2009 served on the petitioner and the one filed in the learned Court. Whereas the copy served upon the petitioner, does not contain the date of order of closure of the evidence, the same finds place in the copy filed in the Court, placed at Annexure-3. 3 Patna High Court CWJC No.6656 of 2012 (4) dt.30-11-2012 It is the contention of Mr. Sinha that the same amounts to interpolation and stands admitted by the defendant in the Court below admitting making the correction upon the oral orders of the Court. It is thus submitted that in view of the circumstances the learned Trial Court ought to have proceeded against the defendant under the provisions of Section 340 of the Code of criminal Procedure. It is apparent from the application dated 6.6.2009 at Annexure-3, that the only addition made by the defendant is to clarify the date of the impugned order by which the evidence of the defendant was closed and for the recall whereof the application had been filed. Learned Trial Court having noticed the submissions of rival contentions and considering nature of the prayer made in the application, has allowed the same in the interest of justice and the same being relevant for ad-judication of the matter. The reason assigned by the learned Trial Court for passing the order impugned order does not warrant any interference and this application is, accordingly, disposed of. Sudha/- (Jyoti Saran, J)