Procedure serves as the handmaid of justice, and courts must not permit procedural or technical hurdles to obstruct the delivery of substantial justice. [1000667190008] Litigation represents a pursuit of truth, which forms the bedrock of justice, requiring courts to adopt measures to uncover the truth in disputes. [1000667190008] Under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) CPC, a defendant must produce documents relied upon with the written statement; failure to do so bars their admission in evidence without court leave. (!) (!) (!) (!) [1000667190006] Court leave under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) CPC for additional documents is discretionary, exercised judiciously upon demonstration of good cause by the defendant, without a rigid formula. [1000667190007] Courts should adopt a lenient approach to applications for producing documents under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) CPC when procedural lapses do not cause serious prejudice to the opposing party, prioritizing substantial justice. [1000667190008] Documents missing earlier but traced later, if essential for a just decision, warrant court leave for production under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) CPC upon cogent explanation. [1000667190009] Exceptions to Order 8 Rule 1A CPC include documents used for cross-examining plaintiff's witnesses or refreshing a witness's memory. (!) (!) (!)

Sugandhi (dead) by Lrs. vs P. Rajkumar rep. By His Power Agent Imam Oli

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2020 Supreme(SC) 624

S.ABDUL NAZEER, SANJIV KHANNA
Sugandhi (dead) by Lrs. – Appellant
Versus
P. Rajkumar rep. By His Power Agent Imam Oli – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Anand Padmanabhan, Adv., Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar, AOR.
For the Respondent: Mr. S. Mahendran, AOR.

Judgement Key Points

Procedure serves as the handmaid of justice, and courts must not permit procedural or technical hurdles to obstruct the delivery of substantial justice. [1000667190008]
Litigation represents a pursuit of truth, which forms the bedrock of justice, requiring courts to adopt measures to uncover the truth in disputes. [1000667190008]
Under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) CPC, a defendant must produce documents relied upon with the written statement; failure to do so bars their admission in evidence without court leave. (!) (!) (!) (!) [1000667190006]
Court leave under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) CPC for additional documents is discretionary, exercised judiciously upon demonstration of good cause by the defendant, without a rigid formula. [1000667190007]
Courts should adopt a lenient approach to applications for producing documents under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) CPC when procedural lapses do not cause serious prejudice to the opposing party, prioritizing substantial justice. [1000667190008]
Documents missing earlier but traced later, if essential for a just decision, warrant court leave for production under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) CPC upon cogent explanation. [1000667190009]
Exceptions to Order 8 Rule 1A CPC include documents used for cross-examining plaintiff's witnesses or refreshing a witness's memory. (!) (!) (!)

ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the Order dated 19.02.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras, Madurai Bench, in C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.2609 of 2018 whereby the High Court has dismissed the revision petition filed by the appellants challenging the refusal to entertain an application under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘C.P.C.’) seeking leave of the court to produce additional documents.

3. The appellants herein are the defendants in the suit, O.S. No.257 of 2014, on the file of the Principal Sub-Judge, Pudukottai, and the respondent is the plaintiff. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to in their respective positions before the Trial Court. The plaintiff filed the suit for injunction alleging that the defendants are attempting to grab the suit schedule property. When the suit was posted for the evidence of the defendants, they filed an application seeking leave to produce certain documents. It was contended that they had recently traced these documents related to the suit property and that was why they could not produce them along with the written statement. This application was opposed by the pl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2020 Supreme(SC) 624

S.ABDUL NAZEER, SANJIV KHANNASugandhi (dead) by Lrs. – AppellantVersusP. Rajkumar rep. By His Power Agent Imam Oli – Respondent

S.ABDUL NAZEER, SANJIV KHANNA
Sugandhi (dead) by Lrs. – Appellant
Versus
P. Rajkumar rep. By His Power Agent Imam Oli – Respondent