LIVE Online Course on NDPS by Riva Pocha and Adv. Taraq Sayed. Starting from 24th May. Register Now!!
LAW Courses

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Order VIII Rule 1: Delayed Filing Of Documents By Defendants Not Permissible Without Court’s Leave: Delhi HC

  • The Delhi HC has reiterated in Jindal Stainless (Hisar) Ltd. vs. Sourabh Jinal and ors. that order VIII rule 1A(3) clearly stipulates that the documents which should have been produced before the Court but have not been so produced, shall not be produced at the stage of hearing without the leave of the Court.
  • The suit in question had been filed by the plaintiff seeking a permanent injunction and restraining the use of the trademark ‘JINDAL’. An application was moved by the applicant/defendant Sourabh Jindal to bring on record certain documents which he claimed were the result of certain developments which took place after the ws had been filed.
  • This application was strongly opposed by the plaintiffs. They argued that the present application was barred by Order VIII Rule 1A(3) of CPC. They also argued that the defendants have not been able to show any cogent reason as to why the documents could not be placed on record before.
  • To support the contention that before the Courts grant the application for the production of additional documents, it has to be proved that the said documents were not within the knowledge of the defendants, reliance was placed on a previous decision of the Delhi HC in the case of Polyflor Limited vs. Sh. A.N.Goenka and ors (2016).
  • The applicants relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble SC in the case of Sugandhi (dead) by Legal Representatives and anr. vs. P. Rajkumar (2020)10 SCC where the Apex Court held that mere technical and procedural hurdles cannot stand in the way of doing complete justice in a case.
  • The Delhi HC observed, after hearing both the parties, that the provision of Order VIII Rule 1A(3) made it clear that a document which ought to have been produced before the Court and was not so produced, could only be produced later with the leave of the Court. Looking at the facts and circumstances of the case, the OCurt observed that it would be in the interest of justice that the application is allowed.
  • Relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in Sugandhi’s case cited above, the Court observed that litigation is a journey towards the ascertainment of the truth, and that Courts should be lenient in granting the applications under Rule 1A(3) for the production of documents. The Court also observed that a procedural hurdle should not come in the way of doing complete justice in a case.
  • Thus, the application was granted.

Anticipatory Bail Plea Not Maintainable If Accused Enters Appearance: Karnataka HC

  • In a case titled Ramesh vs State Through Dy RFO the Karnataka HC has said that once an accused appears before the Court either personally or through his pleader, he cannot seek an anticipatory bail under section 438 of CrPC.
  • In the instant case the Deputy Range Forest Officer seized three monitor lizards and three gray francolin from the house of the petitioner. Then a complaint was filed under Section 55(b) read with 51 of the Wildlife Protection Act in the lower Court.
  • The trial Court took cognizance of the offence and issued summons for the attendance of the accused. He appeared through his counsel and sought for an exemption under 205 of CrPC. The same was allowed by the Court. But he remained absent in the later stages, due to which a non- bailable warrant was issued against him.
  • He then sought an anticipatory bail by filing an application before the Sessions Court which was rejected. Aggrieved, he moved the HC.
  • The petitioner’s counsel submitted that no prima facie case was made against the petitioner and the search that was conducted was not in compliance with section 50(8) of CPC and hence the recovery was in itself doubtful.
  • The Karnataka HC, relying upon the judgement of the Court in S.R. Nagaraj vs. State of Karnataka (2011) and K. Somasekhar vs. State of Karnataka (2015) and held that if once, the accused appeared before the Trial Court and later could not appear before the Court and due to this, a warrant has been issued for his arrest, the remedy of anticipatory bail is not available to that person.
  • The Court observed that the accused had appeared before the trial court and had also made an application under 205 CrPC seeking an exemption from appearance for that day, the Court held that once an application for exemption has been allowed, the petitioner cannot invoke section 438 of CrPC. The Court said that the petitioner should have filed an application for recalling the warrant issued by the lower Court.
  • Thus, the Court held that the petitioner was allowed to legally appear before the trial Court and that once this has been allowed, he cannot plead that he was not allowed to attend legally, and hence the application under section 438 CrPC is not maintainable.
"Loved reading this piece by Shweta?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"

Tags :

  Views  45  Report

Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query