Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ARUN KUMAR JHA, J.
Civil Misc. Jur. No.276 of 2024
(13.9.2024)
Sushil Jha & Anr. ... Petitioners
vs.
Fudan Kumar Jha ... Respondent
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order VIII, Rule 1-A(3) – Production of document by the defendant at a late stage of trial – even though the documents/evidences have been sought to be brought on record at a late stage of trial, the learned Trial Court ought to have allowed the application of the petitioners/defendants as rules of procedure are handmaid of justice and a party could not be deprived to bring the documents or record – hence impugned order set aside and application of the defendants for permission to produce the documents allowed subject to payment of cost – defendant permitted to file the documents and to prove the same in accordance with law – at the same time, the respondent/plaintiff given liberty to lead evidence, if any, in rebuttal of the documents so produced by the defendants, before the defendants are given an opportunity to lead evidence to rebut the evidence of the plaintiff/respondent – the present application stands allowed. (Paras 14 to 16)
2022 Live Law (SC) 533; (2016) 14 SCC 142; (1999) 7 SCC 280 – Referred.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The case involves a dispute over the possession and ownership of certain land plots, with the defendants claiming an oral exchange of land based on historical possession and land carving out from old survey plots (!) .
The defendants filed an application under Order VIII, Rule 1-A(3) of the Civil Procedure Code seeking permission to produce certain maps, reports, and evidence to support their claim of land exchange and possession (!) .
The trial court rejected this application on the grounds that the documents were not relevant, admissible, or could have been produced earlier, and that their late submission was an attempt to delay proceedings (!) (!) (!) .
The defendants argued that they had a right to produce the documents as evidence supporting their defense, especially since their claim involves complex land carving and exchange, which requires supporting documentary evidence (!) (!) .
The court noted that the documents sought to be introduced were not filed along with the initial pleadings or during the presentation of evidence and that, according to procedural rules, such documents cannot be received without the court’s leave if filed late (!) .
The court observed that the relevance and admissibility of the documents could be examined during trial based on the evidence, and that parties should be allowed to lead their best evidence, even at a later stage, to ensure justice (!) .
The court emphasized that procedural rules should serve the cause of justice and that a strict adherence to procedural deadlines should not result in depriving parties of the opportunity to substantiate their claims or defenses (!) (!) .
The order under challenge was set aside, and the application was allowed, permitting the defendants to produce and prove the documents in question, subject to payment of a cost to the opposing party (!) .
The court clarified that its decision was solely for the purpose of procedural justice in the case and did not constitute any opinion on the merits of the case itself (!) (!) .
The respondent (plaintiff) was granted the opportunity to lead additional rebuttal evidence if necessary after the defendants produce their documents (!) .
These points reflect the legal principles that procedural rules are meant to facilitate justice, that late evidence can be admitted to ensure a fair trial, and that the court has discretion to allow evidence to be produced even at a late stage, provided justice is served.
Arun Kumar Jha, J.—The instant petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 10.01.2024 passed by learned Sub Judge 1st, Pupri, Sitamarhi in Title Suit No. 38 of 2019 whereby and whereunder the application filed by the defendants/petitioners under Order VIII, Rule I-A(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short “the Code”) was rejected.
2. The conspectus of the case is that the petitioners are defendants in Title Suit No. 38 of 2019 filed by the plaintiff/ respondent for recovery of possession of part of survey Plot No. 1226 having an area of 1300 sq. link (Kari), situated in the Village- Adhgaon, Hanuman Nagar, Post Office-Saura, Anchal and Police Station-Nanpur, District-Sitamarhi from the defendants petitioners and for mesne profit and for other reliefs. It transpires that the plaintiff has filed the suit claiming that he is the owner of above noted suit land and has got the land is his share after partition among his ancestors and brother. His brother has built his house on his share in Khata No. 479, Khesra No. 1226 from south side and he also constructed his house in the year 1987 on the part of the aforesaid land from south side and kept the land vacant from the north side. The defendants encroached upon the land demolishing the pillars and beams erected over the suit property by the plaintiff and also demolished the temporary house built by uncle of the plaintiff on Khesra No. 1224 and built a wall on the aforesaid plots. The defendants appeared and filed their written statement controverting the claim of the plaintiff. One of the contentions in the written statement of the defendants is that the ancestors of the defendants had title and possession over C.S. Plot Nos. 509 and 508 and corresponding plots are Revisional Survey Plot Nos. 1225 and 1224, respectively. However, C.S. Plot Nos. 508 and 509 were running obliquely in the north east direction and likewise the northern ridge of C.S. Plot No. 505 was obliquely running somewhat in the north east direction and there was difficulty in the construction of straight walls being constructed by ancestors of both the parties. So the ancestors of the defendants gave ½ decimal of south western portion of the C.S. Plot No. 508 to ancestors of plaintiff and in lieu thereof, the ancestors of the plaintiff had given 9 links wide and 25 links long land from north eastern portion of C.S. Plot No. 505 i.e., northern portion of R.S. Plot No. 1226 to the ancestors of the defendants in exchange and accordingly, the ancestors of both the parties of the suit had been coming into possession with perfect title thereon. Thus, the defendants claimed their title and possession over the suit land of Plot No. 1226 on the basis of oral exchange. It has also been submitted that south western portion of C.S. Plot No. 508 given in change to the ancestor of the plaintiff has been included in the map of R.S. Plot Nos. 1227 and 1184 recorded in the names of ancestors of the plaintiff and they have constructed house over the said portion of C.S. Plot No. 508.
3. The defendants filed a petition on 08.11.2023 under Order VIII, Rule 1-A(3) of the Code for permission to produce the comparative case map of C.S. Plot Nos. 508 and 509 and their corresponding R.S. Plot Nos. with the help of R.S. and C.S. map and report prepared by the Survey Knowing Advocate and for recording the evidence of the said witnesses to prove the comparative case map and report. A reply to the said application was filed on 22.11.2023. After hearing the parties, the learned Sub Judge 1st, Pupri rejected the petition of the defendants and the said order is under challenge before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the defendants/petitioners submitted that the learned trial court has rejected the petition on erroneous ground and failed to appreciate the fact that the defendants have a right to adduce evidence in support of their defence and if the same is denied to them, then it would amount
Production of documents – Every party should get opportunity to lead his best evidence – Relevance of documents could be examined by trial court.
The court affirmed that previous orders rejecting applications for scientific measurement in ongoing litigation are final and cannot be re-agitated, emphasizing the principles of res judicata and tim....
The court established that procedural delays should not prevent the introduction of relevant evidence, prioritizing substantial justice.
The court established that additional evidence cannot be admitted in appellate proceedings if the party had prior opportunities to present it, and that the appointment of a commissioner should not be....
The court emphasized that the lower court's order for document production must not be a dilatory tactic and should adhere to legal principles governing such applications.
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
