Judgment · High Court

es furnished by the plaintiff. On 08.06.2005, an application under Section 151 of the CPC was filed by the Plai ntiff. Relevant portion of the application is extracted hereinbelow: That the above case is fixed for examination of witnesses for the defend (cid:28)1. ant. That on the last date 7.05.2005 after cross examination of the witness f 2. or the plaintiff the learned court fixed the next date for examination of defend ants witness it was stated by the counsel for the plaintiff that evidence for th eir side is over. But from the examination of the records it appears that some i mportant piece of evidence has not been brought on record and the counsel has by mistake close the evidence.

That order closing the evidence of the plaintiff may be recalled under t he inherent powers conferred under section 151 C.P.C. and the plaintiff be given an opportunity to adduce an witness or to re-examine P.W. 1 in the case for end That there was no laches or negligent on their part and they may not suf s of justice. 4. fer for the mistake of the counsel. That the plaintiff begs to state that they will suffer irreparable loss 5. and sustain injury. The plaintiff will be highly prejudiced if it is not allowed to adduce an witness in the case.

That in view of the facts and circumstances stated above, the plaintiff humbly submits that Your honour may be pleased to recall the order dated 7.5.200 5 and allow the plaintiff to adduce another witness in the case.

That this application is made bonafide and for the ends of justice. It is therefore prayed that Your honour be pleased to recall the order dated 7.5 .2005 closing the evidence of the plaintiff and allow the plaintiff to adduce on e more witness or re-examine P.W. 1 in the case and on pass such order/orders as Your honour may deem fit and proper. V E R I F I C A T I O N I, Surendra Agarwal, son of Late Chandulal Agarwal, aged about 45 years, resident of A.T. Road, Guwahati, by profession service in plaintiff firm do her eby verify the statements made in the petition. The statements made in paragraph s 1 to 6 are true to my knowledge and information and I set my hand to this veri fication on this the 8th day of June 2005 at Guwahati. (cid:29) The defendants filed an objection to the said application contesting the same, c ontending that all the documents filed by the plaintiff were exhibited and there fore, the application filed by the plaintiff has no merit. A perusal of the application under Section 151 CPC would go to show that the sai d application is bereft of material particulars. What (cid:28)some (cid:29) important piece of evidence that was not brought on record is also not indicated in the said applic ation. Mr. Sharma could not dispute that all the documents filed by the plaintiff were exhibited. The argument of Mr. Sharma that if the prayer is not allowed, the pla intiff would suffer prejudice, cannot be accepted in view of non- disclosure by the plaintiff, the nature of documents sought to be exhibited. In view of the above, I am opinion that the learned trial court did not commit a ny material irregularity in rejecting the application. There is no merit in this application and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Stay order passed earlier shall stand vacated. The parties will appear before the learned Trial Court on 26.08.2013 for further orders.