The main legal point established is the discretionary power of the Court to allow the production of additional documents under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 14 of C.P.C, emphasizing the need to effectively adjudicate the dispute between the parties while considering the prejudice to the other side.

Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent.

2. By this Writ Petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 09.07.2015 passed by the Adhoc Civil Judge Senior Division, B-Court, Panaji, by which the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff seeking leave of the Court to produce additional documents through his witness has been rejected.

3. The application in question, no doubt, seeks leave of the Court to produce documents through the witness of the petitioner, although, the application ought to have been on the lines as required under the relevant provisions of the C.P.C. The application is not happily drafted, but, would it mean that for such a reason or to be precise, for the mistake attributable to an Advocate of the party, interest of justice should suffer ? ........ and my answer is no.

4. It is now well settled law that the provisions of Order 7 Rule 14 of C.P.C are to be applied not in a technical manner, but, by taking a liberal view. The requirements which were previously there for showing the necessity of production of documents, are no longer there. Now, the provision requires that if the document cannot be produced by the plaintiff and the plaintiff seeks to produce some important document at a later stage, only leave of the Court is required to be taken. The meaning of expression appearing in Order 7 Rule 14(3) of C.P.C.

“a document which ought to be produced in Court by the plaintiff when the plaint …....... is not produced or entered accordingly, shall not without the leave of the Court ….....” has been understood to be having a wider connotation and has been interpreted to indicate the wide nature of discretionary power of the Court exercised for the purpose of determining the real controversy. If the Court is of the view that such documents being produced at a subsequent stage are really required to adjudicate the dispute between parties effectively, the Court would have to exercise its discretion by allowing the production of additional documents. While exercising such a discretionary power, the Court has also to take into consideration the fact of prejudice to the other side. If the Court is of the view that no prejudice would be caused, the discretion must be exercised in favour of the plaintiff seeking benefit of this provision. These principles can also be seen to be laid down in the following cases:-

i. Smt. Chitrakala Fal Dessai Vs. Shri Balu Marathe alias Mane s/o Jyotiba Marathe, 2006(5) ALL MR 438,

ii. United India Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Madgavkar Salvage & Towage Co. Pvt. Ltd., 1995(1) Goa L.T. 1 and

iii. Vittal Govekar (since deceased) through LR's Vs. Madhukar B. Govekar, 1997 (1) Goa L.T. 266.

5. Learned Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the aforesaid cases referred to in the previous paragraph are not applicable to the facts of the present case. I beg to differ with him for the simple reason that although the facts of these cases are different what has been considered and followed by this Court are the principles stated therein.

6. According to learned Counsel for the respondent, the purpose of Order 7 Rule 14 of C.P.C. or for that matter, Section 153 C.P.C. is not to enable the parties to fill any lacunae in a case. He submits that the application in question has been filed by invoking the power under Section 153 of C.P.C. and since such power cannot be used for assisting the parties to remove a lacuna, the application deserves to be rejected and it has been rightly rejected by the learned trial Court. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the case of Bagai Construction Vs. Gupta Building Material Store, AIR 2013 SC 1849.

7. No doubt, the application is not happily drafted and does not refer to specific provisions of the Civil Procedure Code under which it has been filed. There is also no quarrel about the principle that provisions of Order 7 Rule 14 of C.P.C. and Section 151 of C.P.C. cannot be allowed to be