Gurcharan Dass Vij & others v. Vijay Singh

Mr. Y.P. Sood and Mr. Parveen Chauhan, Advocates. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral) By way of the present petition, a challenge has been laid to the impugned order dated 14.12.2017 (Annexure P-8), passed by the learned Civil Judge, Court No. (5), Shimla, H.P., whereby an application filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the present petitioners/defendants, has been dismissed.

#3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The respondent-plaintiff instituted Civil Suit No. 90/1 of 2006 for permanent prohibitory injunction. The petitioners-defendants contested the suit and filed a counter-claim. The learned trial Court initially dismissed the plaintiff's suit and decreed the defendants' counter-claim vide judgment dated 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2

29.12.2017. Upon appeal, the learned Additional District Judge-1, Shimla, set aside the said judgments and decrees and remanded the case for letting the respondent-plaintiff lead rebuttal evidence vide judgment dated 04.08.2017.

#4. Upon remand, the plaintiff rather than leading rebuttal evidence, moved an application under Order VII Rule 14 of the Civil Procedure Code for producing additional documents. The respondent/plaintiff, was permitted to tender and exhibit the documents titled along with the application in evidence through a statement of his counsel without leading any substantive evidence. The petitioners-defendants, thereafter, filed an application under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, seeking an opportunity to rebut the said documents. The learned trial Court dismissed this application vide the impugned order.

#5. The core issue for consideration is whether the trial Court erred in dismissing the defendants' application, thereby denying them a fair opportunity to rebut the evidence introduced by the plaintiff after the remand.

#6. At the very outset in this regard it would be apposite to refer to the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court in Billa Jagan Mohan Reddy vs Billa Sanjeeva Reddy 1994 SCC (4) 659, relevant extract of whereof has been reproduced herein under: “It is settled law that, if the documents are found to be relevant to decide the real issue in the controversy, and when the court felt that interest of justice requires that the documents may be received, exercising the power under Order 4 1, Rule 27 CPC the appellate court would receive the documents and consider their effect thereof. When such is the position, when the documents are sought to be produced in the trial court, before the arguments are completed, normally they may be received; an opportunity given to prove them and rebuttal if any and their relevance and effect they 3 may have, be considered in deciding the issues arising in the controversy. Under these circumstances, the trial court was not justified in refusing to condone the delay and to receive the documents.”

#7. The trial Court in the case at hand has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it, rather it has completely misdirected itself by entering into the realm of Order 18 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code. The application filed by the respondent/plaintiff was one filed under Order 7 Rule 14 of the Civil Procedure Code by virtue of the same, the respondent/plaintiff was not leading rebuttal evidence in terms of Order 18 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code.

#8. Even otherwise, while interpreting Order 18 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code in the case reported as Neelam Rai vs. Surjit Kumar & Ors. AIR 2011 HP 39, it has been held that if a defendant is given a right to lead evidence either by way of additional evidence or otherwise in a counter- claim, then the plaintiff would get a right to lead rebuttal evidence. Relevant extract is being reproduced here-in-below:- “It is only when the defendant is again given a right to lead evidence either by way of additional evidence or otherwise, i.e., in case of a counter claim to lead further evidence that the plaintiff would get a right to lead rebuttal evidence again and it is only in this eventuality that the plaintiff can reply generally on the whole case.”

#9. The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Supervisory jurisdiction, is available keep the tribunals and Courts subordinate to it, “within the bounds of their authority”. When a subordinate Court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have or has 4 failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have or the jurisdiction though available is being exercised by the Court in a manner not permitted by law and failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned thereby, the High Court may step in to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction.

#10. Supervisory jurisdiction is not available to correct mere errors of fact or of law unless the following requirements are satisfied: (i) the error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law, and (ii) a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby care, caution and circumspection need to be exercised, when supervisory jurisdiction is sought to be invoked during the pendency of any suit or proceedings in a subordinate Court and the error though calling for correction is yet capable of being corrected at the conclusion of the proceedings in an appeal or revision preferred there against and entertaining a petition invoking certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court would obstruct the smooth flow and/or early disposal of the suit or proceedings. The High Court may feel inclined to intervene where the error is such, as, if not corrected at that very moment, may become incapable of correction at a later stage and refusal to intervene would result in travesty of justice.

#11. The object of superintendence, both administrative and judicial, is to maintain efficiency, smooth and orderly functioning of the entire machinery of justice in such a way as it does not bring it into any disrepute. The power of interference under this Article is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of 5 justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence in the functioning of the Tribunals and Courts subordinate to the High Court.

#12. This reserve and exceptional power of judicial intervention is not to be exercised just for grant of relief in individual cases but should be directed for promotion of public confidence in the administration of justice in the larger public interest, whereas Article 226 of the Constitution of India is meant for protection of individual grievance. Therefore, the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India may be unfettered but its exercise is subject to high degree of judicial discipline. An improper and a frequent exercise of this power will be counterproductive and will divest this extraordinary power of its strength and vitality.

#13. Hence, in view of the aforesaid, the present petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 14.12.2017 is set aside and the application filed by the petitioners/defendants under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code is allowed. The petitioners/defendants are permitted to lead rebuttal evidence.

#14. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners/defendants submits that the following documents, are the only documents which he intends to file by way of rebuttal to the documents tendered and exhibited in the evidence by respondent/plaintiff:- Sr. No. Details date of documents

#3. Certified copy of judgment dated 30.12.2023 in CS No.101-1 of 2010, titled Kanwar Vijay Singh Vs. Gurcharan passed by Senior Civil Judge, Court No.1, Shimla. Certified copy of grounds of appeal No.18/2024 titled Kanwar Vijay Singh vs. Gurcharan District Judge Shimla. Certified copy of cross objections dated 27.07.2024 in case No.60 of 2024. 6

#15. Parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on

15.10.2025. On the said date, the aforementioned documents shall be tendered by the petitioners/defendants. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. + September 24, 2025 (KS/TB) Judge (Bipin Chander Negi)