1. Appeal against refusal to permit production of additional documents under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. (Para 4 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 1492
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Hemant Gupta, V. Ramasubramanian, JJ.
Levaku Pedda Reddamma & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Gottumukkala Venkata Subbamma & Anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4096 of 2022 (@ SLP(C) No. 7452 of 2022)
Decided On : 17-05-2022
Advocates appeared:
Mrs. B. Sunita Rao, Advocate, Mr. Gunmaya Mann, Advocate, For the Appellant / Mr. Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, Advocate, Mr. Polanki Gowtham, Advocate, Ms. Rajeswari Mukherjee, Advocate, For the Respondent.
Mrs. B. Sunita Rao, Advocate, Mr. Gunmaya Mann, Advocate, For the Appellant / Mr. Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, Advocate, Mr. Polanki Gowtham, Advocate, Ms. Rajeswari Mukherjee, Advocate, For the Respondent.
Important Points
Rules of procedure should not deny a party the right to file documents, even with some delay
Subject
Civil Law - Procedural
Act Referred
Headnote
Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The trial Court and High Court erred in not allowing the defendants to produce additional documents in accordance with this rule. The court held that rules of procedure should not deny a party the right to file documents, even with some delay. The appeal was allowed and the defendants were permitted to file and prove the documents.
Fact of the Case:
Defendant's appeal against the order refusing to permit the production of additional documents
Finding of the Court:
Trial Court and High Court erred in not allowing the defendants to produce documents, leading to denial of justice
Ratio Decidendi: Rules of procedure should not deny a party the right to file documents, even with some delay
Result: Appeal allowed, defendants permitted to file and prove documents
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Defendants challenge the refusal of the trial and High Court to permit the production of additional documents despite delay. (Para 4 )
3. Denying the production of documents due to delay, when relevance can be examined during evidence, leads to a denial of justice. (Para 5 )
4. Rules of procedure are the hand-maid of justice; delay in producing documents should be managed via costs rather than absolute refusal. (Para 6 )
5. Appeal allowed; orders set aside; defendants permitted to file documents; plaintiffs granted leave for additional evidence and defendants for rebuttal. (Para 7 , 8 )
6. Can a party be denied the right to produce additional documents solely due to delay?
No. Denying a party the right to file documents even if there is some delay can lead to a denial of justice, especially when the relevance of such documents can be examined during the evidence stage. (Para 5 )
7. What is the legal status of procedural rules in relation to the administration of justice?
Rules of procedure are considered the hand-maid of justice. Therefore, procedural delays should generally be addressed by imposing costs rather than by declining the production of documents. (Para 6 )
8. If a party is permitted to produce additional documents, what right does the opposing party have?
The opposing party should be permitted to lead additional evidence based on the newly produced documents, and the party producing the documents must be given an opportunity to rebut that evidence. (Para 8 )
ORDER
1. Issue notice.
2. Mr. Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1.
3. Leave granted.
4. The defendant Nos.2 to 5 are in appeal aggrieved against the order passed by the High Court affirming the order passed by the trial Court refusing to permit the appellant to produce additional documents in terms of Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
5. We find that the trial Court as well as the High Court have gravely erred in law in not permitting the defendants to produce documents, the relevance of which can be examined by the trial Court on the basis of the evidence to be led, but to deprive a party to the suit not to file documents even if there is some delay will lead to denial of justice.
6. It is well settled that rules of procedure are hand-maid of justice and, therefore, even if there is some delay, the trial Court should have imposed some costs rather than to decline the production of the documents itself.
7. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The orders passed by the trial Court and the High Court are set aside. The appellants - defendant Nos.2 to 5 are permitted to file the documents and to prove the same in accordance with law.
8. Mr. Nazki states that the plaintiffs-respondents should be permitted to lead additional evidence, if any, on the basis of the documents now produced by the defendants. We accept the request. The Plaintiff shall lead additional evidence, if any, before the defendants are given an opportunity to lead evidence to rebut the evidence produced by the plaintiff.
9. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
