Party Whose Right To File Written Statement Is Forfeited Cannot Introduce Its Case Indirectly Through Evidence: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that a party whose right to file a written statement in a case has been forfeited cannot introduce his case indirectly through evidence or written submission. Such a party can still participate in the proceedings and cross-examine the complainant, but cannot indirectly introduce his case.
"In the absence of any specific provisions dealing with non-filing of written statements/forfeiture of the right to file a written statement, taking note of the general position as above, it can only be held that it should bar the opposite party in a proceeding before the Consumer Redressal Forums to bring in pleadings, indirectly to introduce its/his case and evidence to support such case.", the bench comprising Justices CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar said.
"In the situations mentioned above, the right of the opposite party is confined to participate in the proceedings without filing a written statement and to cross-examine witness(es), if any, examined by the complainant(s)," the Court added.
Upon placing reliance on Karnataka High Court's Judgment Nalini Sunder v. GV Sunder reported in AIR 2003 Kar 86, the court observed that the defendant would not be allowed to bring forth anything admissible in view of the impact of forfeiture on the right to file a written statement.
In essence, the court said that the defendant/opposite party could not be permitted to make out a case based on evidence for which no foundation was laid down in the pleadings.
The aforesaid observation of the Court is crucial when a defendant introduces anything admissible despite his right to file a written submission being forfeited.
As evident from Order 6 Rule 7 of CPC, the defendant would be allowed to bring in those claims that are in consistent with the previous pleadings made by him. But, when previous pleadings are not available on account of forfeiture of the right to file a written statement then the defendant would not be allowed to bring in pleadings indirectly to introduce its case.
The Court said that once the right to file a written submission stands forfeited, then the defendant would not be permitted to introduce its case through written submissions. However, the forfeiture of the right to file a written submission would not bar the defendant from participating in the proceedings and cross-examining the witness(es), the Court said referring to Nanda Dulal Pradhan & Anr. v. Dibakar Pradhan & Anr.
The present case relates to the consumer dispute, wherein pursuant to the Supreme Court's orde,r the Respondent/defendant had forfeited his right to file a written statement, however, liberty was granted to him to decide whether to participate in the proceedings or not.
Without a case being put forth by the defendant to cross-examine the witness, he had cross-examined the witness and produced the documentary evidence.
Observing that the defendant couldn't have produced evidence without a case being put forth by him, the Judgment authored by Justice Ravikumar said that "the defendant could only be allowed to argue the legal questions arising based on authorities and provisions of law as also regarding lapses or laches and the consequential non-admissibility or otherwise of evidence, let in by the appellants."
Since the NCDRC had not relied on the defendant's written statements in arriving at its decision, therefore the Court refused to interfere with that part of the NCDRC's order, and the appellant's challenge to the NCDRC's decision, to allow the defendant to file a written statement despite his right to file written statement was forfeited, became inconsequential.
Counsel(s) For Appellant(s) Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Adv. Mr. Govind Jee, AOR Mr. Kartikeya Khanna, Adv. Mr. Omanakuttan K K, Adv. Mr. Ayush Mishra, Adv. Mrs. Parul Dhurve, Adv.
Counsel(s) For Respondent(s) Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, AOR Mr. Devamshu Behl, Adv.
Case Title: Kaushik Narsinhbhai Patel & Ors. Versus M/s. S.J.R. Prime Corporation Private Limited & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 8176 of 2022
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 497