LexM/S. ROHINI TRADERS versus M/S. J.K. LAKSHMI CEMENT LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015) 1 S.C.R. 981 M/S. ROHINI TRADERS V. M/S. J.K. LAKSHMI CEMENT LTD. (Civil Appeal Nos. 10041-42 of 2010) FEBRUARY 03, 2015 [RANJAN GOGOi AND R.K. AGRAWAL, JJ.] A B Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Or. XII r. 8 - Notice under - By the plaintiff seeking the defendant to file cerlain documents - Trial Courl decreed the suit drawing adverse C inference against the defendant for not filing the documents - In appeal, High Courl set aside the decree remanding the · matter for fresh trial- Review petition dismissed - On appeal, held: High Courl rightly remanded the matter for fresh trial setting aside the decree - Trial courl could not have drawn D adverse inference against the defendant because it had produced the document before the courl and the patty was a/so examined vis-a-vis that document - It was the plaintiff who failed to place them on record. Dismissing the appeals, the court HELD: 1. The object bf Order XII Rule 8 of the CPC is to facilitate the plaintiff or any other party to get a document on record which is not in their possession or E in possession of the other party. If a document has been F produced, then it is the duty of the party who has asked for such production to get it placed on record. If, however, the said document is not placed on record, then adverse inference against the party who has produced the same cannot be drawn, more so, when the party who G has produced the said document before the Court has been cross-examined vis-a-vis that document. [Para 10] [987-H; 988-A-B] 981 H 982 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 1 S.C.R. A 2. The High Court was right in setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and remanding the matter for fresh decision. Even though the respondent-Company had not brought on record any document before the trial Court, yet it had produced B certain documents mentioned at Item Nos. 3-6 in the notice dated 05.07 .2006 and DW-1 was also cross- examined with regard to the same. It was the duty of the appellant to get the documents produced by th,e respondent-Company under Order XII Rule 8 of CPC c exhibited in the suit proceedings so that a true and correct finding either way could have been recorded by the trial Court. The appellant did not take any step to get those documents marked and exhibited before the trial Court. [Paras 7, 8 and 11) [986-F-G; 987-F-G, 988-C) D Badri Parshad and Anr. vs. Shanti Lal Seth and Ors. AIR E F 1941 Lahore 228; Union of India vs. Firm Vishudh Ghee Vyopar Manda/ AIR 1953 All. 689 - referred to. Case Law Reference: AIR 1941 Lahore 228 AIR 1953 All. 689 referred to referred to Para 5 Para 5 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 10041-10042 of 2010. From the Judgment and Order dated 07.11.2008 of the High Court of Delhi in R.F.A. No. 406 of 2007. Dilip Singh, Parmanand Pandey for the Appellant. G M. L. Lahoty, Pabam K. Sharma, Gargi 8. Bharali, Himanshu Shekhar for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.K. AGRAWAL, J. 1. These appeals have been filed H against the orders dated 07.11.2008 and 16.12.2008 passed ROHINI TRADERS v. J.K. LAKSHMI CEMENT LTD. 983 [R.K. AGRAWAL, J.] by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in RFA No. 406 of 2007 A and R.P. No. 415 of 2008 respectively. Vide order dated 07.11.2008, the High Court allowed the appeal filed by M/s J.K. Lakshmi Cement Ltd. -respondent herein and set aside the judgment and decree dated 14.03.2007, passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi in Suit No. 125 of 2004, while B restoring the suit filed by Mis Rohini Traders - appellant herein for trial afresh as per the observations made in the judgment. Brief Facts 2. (a) The appellant claims itself to be a sole C proprietorship concern working as third party commission agent of the respondent-Company. The appellant claimed a sum of Rs. 12,05,231/- as dues to be payable by the respondent- Company as on 31.03.2004. Several requests were made to the respondent-Company to pay the amount due but to no effect. D Even after serving a legal notice dated 09.04.2004 to the respondent-Company, it remained un-complied with. The appellant filed a suit praying for decree of Rs. 14,21,250/- including the principal amount as also interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum. The suit was contested by the respondent- E Company on the ground that it was barred by limitation as also on merits. The claim of the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.