M/S Deepak Engineers vs. M/S P.P. Rolling Mills Mfg. Co PVT LTD And Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Deepak Engineers, filed a civil suit for recovery of Rs. 1,34,815/- against M/s P.P. Rolling Mills MFG. Co. Pvt. Ltd. and others. The petitioner alleged that the respondents placed purchase orders and sent material and GST challans, and after job work, the petitioner issued bills, but no payment was received. The respondents denied the claim and stated that some amount was recoverable from the petitioner. The trial court framed issues on 01.12.2021 and fixed the case for the petitioner's evidence. Due to various adjournments, including those related to COVID-19 and technical issues with the GST portal, the petitioner's evidence was repeatedly delayed. On 19.05.2023, the trial court closed the petitioner's evidence after allowing the examination of one witness from the Excise and Taxation Office, but restraining the examination of any other witness.

Held

The Court held that the impugned orders, which restrained the petitioner from examining any new witness and subsequently closed the petitioner's evidence, were erroneous. The primary reason for not allowing the examination of Deepak Saini was the omission of his name in the record, despite him being the GPA through whom the suit was filed. The Court found this omission to be accidental. It reiterated the principle that procedure is a handmaid of justice and should not be allowed to subjugate substantive justice. The valuable right of a litigant to lead evidence should not be taken away except in cases of deliberate omission or failure. The Court found that prejudice would be caused to the petitioner if not afforded an opportunity to lead evidence, which is necessary for a just decision. Therefore, the petition was allowed, subject to the petitioner paying costs of Rs. 5,000/- and being granted only one effective opportunity to examine a new witness, subject to the trial court's discretion for further adjournments based on exigencies.

Key Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred in closing the evidence of the petitioner/plaintiff, thereby preventing the examination of a material witness, Deepak Saini (GPA of the plaintiff), on the grounds of an accidental omission in the list of witnesses? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that Deepak Saini, the GPA of the plaintiff, is a material witness who is well aware of the transactions. The omission of his name in the list of witnesses was an accidental error by the counsel. The petitioner only intended to examine Deepak Saini and himself if granted one effective opportunity. The petitioner contended that procedural technicalities should not override substantive justice, and the right to lead evidence should not be taken away due to a deliberate omission. Revenue/State's Arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments from the respondents.