Back
In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
S.B. SHUKRE, J.
Francisco Milagres Colaco & Another
Versus
Mohandas Damodar Dhaimode & Another
Writ Petition No. 139 of 2014
Decided on: 14-08-2014
Production of Additional Documents - Civil Procedure Code - Order VII Rule 14, Order XVIII Rule 17 - The court allowed the application for production of additional documents, which was challenged by the petitioners. The court held that the application was filed to fill up the lacunae in the evidence of the plaintiffs and was not for giving clarification to remove ambiguity. The court referred to legal provisions and case laws to support its decision, ultimately quashing the impugned order and rejecting the application for additional documents.
Fact of the Case:
The respondents filed a civil suit against the petitioners for injunction and damages. After the evidence and final arguments, the respondents sought to produce additional documents, which was opposed by the petitioners. The court allowed the application, leading to the petition for quashing the order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the application for additional documents was aimed at filling up the lacunae in the evidence of the plaintiffs and not for giving clarification to remove ambiguity. The court referred to legal provisions and case laws to support its decision.
Issues: The main issue was whether the court should allow the application for production of additional documents at a late stage of the trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the provisions of Order VII Rule 14 read with Order XVIII Rule 17 cannot be used to fill up the lacunae in the evidence of the plaintiffs. The court referred to case laws to emphasize that the power cannot be used as a remedy for deficiencies in the pleadings or evidence of the plaintiff.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, quashing the impugned order and rejecting the application for additional documents. The court directed the trial to proceed in accordance with the law.
Key Points: - The court held that Order VII Rule 14 read with Order XVIII Rule 17 cannot be used to fill up lacunae in the evidence of the plaintiffs. (!) - A plaintiff must show strong, justifiable reasons for not producing documents earlier in the trial; otherwise, production of additional documents is not permissible. (!) - The application to produce Inventory Proceedings documents was rejected, as it sought to fill lacunae rather than clarify ambiguity. (!) (!) - The impugned order allowing production of these documents was quashed; the trial should proceed in accordance with law. (!) (!) - The decision cites precedents from Bagai Construction, Merwyn Anthony Fernandes, Haldiram, Abdul Razak, and Premanand to emphasize the principle against late production to fill gaps. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - The High Court emphasized Article 226/227 jurisdiction should not be used to resee evidence where trial has not committed a jurisdictional error. (!) (!) - The petitioners’ cross-examination rights were safeguarded, but production of the documents was ultimately disallowed. (!) (!) - The suit involved claims for injunction, damages, and the late-produced documents related to Inventory Proceedings and Form No. 3 in a Village survey. (!) (!) - The final direction is to proceed with the trial in accordance with law, without the late-produced documents. (!)
1. By this petition, the petitioners are seeking quashing and setting aside of the order dated 12.2.2014 passed by the Civil Judge, Jr.Dn., Quepem, Goa, in Regular Civil Suit No. 153/2010/B, thereby allowing an application filed by the respondents for production of additional documents.
2. The respondents are the original plaintiffs and the petitioners are the original defendants. The respondents have filed Regular Civil Suit No. 153/2010/B against the petitioners for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction and also for payment of damages. The evidence in the suit was closed and final arguments were also heard. On 10.1.2014 the respondents prayed for adjournment as they wanted to produce the entire proceedings of Inventory No. 17014/57 along with Survey Form No. III of Survey Nos. 239/12 and 239/15 of Cacoda village, the same being necessary for deciding effectively the real controversy involved in the suit. The respondents also filed an application vide Ex.81 seeking leave of the Court to produce these documents in evidence. The application was strongly opposed by the petitioners.
3. It was submitted by the petitioners that the respondents had deliberately not produced all the documents of Inventory Proceedings and kept away some of the documents and if the respondents had produced them in the beginning itself, the whole defence or the whole line of cross-examination would have been different. It was also submitted that no reasons were given by the respondents for not producing these documents at the earlier stage, even though they could have been obtained by them. On these grounds, it was urged that the application was liable to be rejected.
4. After hearing both the sides, the learned Civil Judge by the order dated 12.2.2014 allowed the application permitting the respondents to produce all the documents on record. He also gave an opportunity to the petitioners to cross-examine the plaintiffs on Inventory Proceedings being produced on record. It is this order which is under challenge in the present petition.
5. Shri Vernekar, learned counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that the provisions of Order VII Rule 14, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, have to be read with the provisions of Order XVIII Rule 17, as in the instant case by the impugned order permission has been granted to the petitioners to cross-examine the respondents on Inventory Proceedings. He submits that when both these provisions are read together, it would be noticed that these provisions cannot be resorted to for filling up lacuna in the case of the plaintiff and if no justifiable reasons are stated, such as the document sought to be produced in evidence being not available earlier, or though available being necessary for only clarifying the ambiguity cropped up in the evidence of the plaintiff, production of additional evidence cannot allowed by the Court. In support he places his reliance on the following cases:
(i) Merwyn Anthony Fernandes vs. Brian Louis Sequera and Jane Philomena Sequeira -[W.P. No. 683/10 {decided on 10.1.2011}
(ii) Haldiram (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Haldiram Bhujiawala - [2009] 158 DLT 522
(iii) M/s Bagai Construction v. M/s Gupta Building Material Store – AIR 2013 SC 1849
6. Shri Thali, learned counsel for the respondents, has submitted that the reply (Ex.82) filed by the petitioners to the application vide Ex.81 itself would show that the application for production of additional documents in evidence has not been opposed on the ground that the Inventory Proceedings are not relevant to the controversy involved in the suit, but on the ground that the respondents purposely chose to not bring the said document on record till the final stage of the suit so as to misguide and mislead the petitioners in setting up the proper defence. He submits that in fact the petitioners had carried on the cross-examination to the effect that some of the documents of Inventory Proceedings that were filed on record were incomplete and this p
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
