M/S Rnt Metals PVT. LTD vs. Raka Overseas
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/S RNT METALS PVT. LTD, is defending a commercial recovery suit filed by the respondent, RAKA OVERSEAS. The petitioner sought to recall PW1, Mr. Saurabh Jain, the proprietor of the plaintiff company, who had already been cross-examined. The petitioner had previously served a notice under Order XII Rule 8 CPC requesting the plaintiff to produce GST invoices and returns related to the transactions in question. The petitioner argued that these documents were not produced and they needed to ask further questions to PW1 regarding them, especially since the plaintiff was now seeking to summon a GST official and their records. The respondent contended that PW1 had admitted receiving the Order XII Rule 8 CPC notice and claimed to have brought the demanded documents, although he did not reply to the notice. The respondent argued that any relevant questions should have been put to PW1 during his cross-examination.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner's application to recall PW1 under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC was not maintainable. The Court reasoned that the petitioner had a clear opportunity to ask questions pertaining to the GST documents during the cross-examination of PW1, especially after PW1 admitted receiving the notice under Order XII Rule 8 CPC and claimed to have brought the demanded documents. The Court found that this opportunity was not availed by the petitioner and that the questions should have been put to PW1 at that stage. Furthermore, the Court noted that the GST official was yet to enter the witness box, providing another avenue for the petitioner to inquire about the GST documents. Therefore, the Court found no real requirement to recall PW1. The petition was dismissed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to recall PW1, Mr. Saurabh Jain, for further cross-examination concerning GST invoices and returns, given that the notice under Order XII Rule 8 CPC was served prior to his cross-examination and he claimed to have produced the documents, as per Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the GST invoices and returns were crucial documents that were not produced by the plaintiff. They contended that since the plaintiff was now attempting to summon GST officials and their records, it was necessary to recall PW1 to put further questions related to these GST documents. They relied on the fact that the documents were not produced despite the notice. Respondent's arguments: The respondent argued that PW1 had admitted receiving the Order XII Rule 8 CPC notice and stated that he had brought the demanded documents. They contended that the petitioner had a clear opportunity to ask all relevant questions to PW1 during his cross-examination after the notice was served and the documents were allegedly produced. They also pointed out that the GST official was yet to depose and questions could be posed to that official.
Sections Cited
Order XVIII Rule 17, Order XII Rule 8
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
J U D G M E N T (oral)
The point raised in the present petition is very short.
Petitioner is defending a recovery suit which is commercial in nature and aggrieved by dismissal of their application moved under Order XVIII Rule 17 vide which they sought seeking recall of PW1-Mr. Saurabh Jain, the proprietor of plaintiff-Company, who had already entered into witness box and had been cross-examined.
It is submitted that during the pendency of suit in question and, before the cross-examination, the plaintiff was served with a notice under Order XII Rule 8 CPC in which, inter alia, the request was to produce various GST invoices and Returns with respect to the transactions in question.
The request of the defendant is, merely, to the effect that he may be permitted to put few more questions to said witness which relates to such GST invoices and Returns only. It is argued that these documents were never produced by the plaintiff and, since now, at a later stage, the plaintiffs are seeking to summon GST official and want to call their record, there is a necessity of putting further questions to PW-1. CM(M) 1235/2025
2
Learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff, however, draws the attention of the Court toward cross-examination of PW-1, Mr. Saurabh Jain.
When he graced the witness box on 08.10.2024, Mr. Jain was shown such legal notice served under Order XII Rule 8 CPC i.e. notice dated 20.09.2024, and he admitted that he had received the same. The said notice was, then, accordingly, exhibited. The witness also admitted that he never replied to the notice but, fact remains that, in his further deposition, he, categorically, claimed that he had brought the documents demanded from him by the defendant vide abovesaid notice.
If any question pertaining to such documents was relevant, the same should have been immediately put to PW-1 by defendant, and, therefore, there is no real requirement of seeking recall of the abovesaid witness.
When the opportunity to put up all such questions, after going through the documents brought by the witness, was available to the defendant, it should have been availed then and there. Such clear opportunity has gone begging. Moreover, the concerned GST official is yet to enter into witness box and the defendant can always ask questions with respect to such documents to such official.
Resultantly, the petition is dismissed.
Pending applications also stand disposed of.
(MANOJ JAIN) JUDGE
AUGUST 27, 2025/sw/PB
Reproduced from the public record of the Delhi High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.