JUDGMENT : - The petitioner is the original plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No. 25/98 pending on the file of the Civil Judge Junior Division, Canacona. By this writ petition the petitioner is challenging the Order dated 30th September, 2002. By the impugned order the application filed by the petitioner under Order 14(3) read with section 151 of Civil Procedure Code is rejected.

2. The plaintiff filed the instant suit on 24th September, 1997 inter alia for a direction that she is the owner of the suit property. In the said suit she filed an application under Order 7, Rule 14(3) read with section 151 of Civil Procedure Code praying that documents mentioned in paragraph 5 of the said application which pertained to the suit property be allowed to be produced. It is the petitioners case that the said documents are absolutely necessary for adjudication of the real controversy involved in the suit. According to the petitioner she had misplaced the documents and therefore she could not produce them at the time of filing the suit as well as at the time of production of the documents. In paragraph 5 of the application details of the documents are set out. Almost all documents are public documents except the documents at serial No. (f) which are notes of the partition of the suit property "Udkafond" and serial No. G) which are land site plans.

3. To this application the defendant filed his reply. The defendant objected to the production of these documents on the ground that the petitioner had not stated when those documents were misplaced and in whose power and possession those documents were at the time of filing of the suit and at the stage of production of documents.

4. The application was rejected by the trial Court on the ground that the suit is filed as back as in the year 1998. According to the trial Court the plaintiff has not shown sufficient cause as to why the said documents were not produced earlier. The Court further observed that the petitioner had relied upon these documents in another suit. Therefore the statement that these documents were misplaced and were not in the petitioners possession is a false statement.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order on several counts. He submitted that by amendment of the Civil Procedure Code, the requirement of the plaintiff showing sufficient cause has been deleted. Therefore in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and to ensure proper adjudication of the controversy involved, the trial Court ought to have granted the petitioners application. The learned counsel relied upon Ramnath Nandlal Dhoot and Co. and another vs. B. R. Shroti and others, AIR 1980 Bombay 387.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the suit was filed in the year 1988. He submitted that such belated attempt to produce the documents should not be allowed by this Court. He submitted that no acceptable reasons have been assigned by the petitioner as to why he could not produce the said documents earlier.

7. Particulars of the documents which are sought to be produced are given in paragraph 5 of the application. It is apparent that all these documents except two documents are public documents. In this connection, I may usefully refer to the judgment in Vencu Gopal Tari and others vs. Nilconta S. Xete and others, AIR 1975 Goa, Daman and Diu 32. In that case the Court was dealing with the Civil Procedure Code (1908). The Court was considering a case where the lower Court had refused to allow production of certified copies of public documents. The Court observed that provisions of Order 13 have been enacted to secure a fair trial of the case and not penalize parties for not producing documents in time. The main object of Rule 2 of Order 13 is to prevent parties from manufacturing evidence during the trial. The Court further observed that the stigma that the documents in question could be manufactured, does not attach to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document