1966 Supreme(Cal) 73
BANERJEE
ASHOKA MARKETING LTD – Appellant
Versus
ROTHAS KUMAR – Respondent
Advocates Appeared:
A.C.BHABRA, S.Gupta, S.SINHA
Judgement Key Points
- Order XIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires parties to produce all documentary evidence in their possession or power, upon which they intend to rely, at the first hearing of the suit. (!)
- Order XIII Rule 2 provides that documentary evidence not produced at the first hearing shall not be received at any subsequent stage unless good cause is shown to the satisfaction of the court, and the court must record reasons for admitting such evidence. (!)
- The rules apply to documents in the possession or power of parties that they intend to rely on, as well as those ordered by the court to be produced; documents not in a party's possession need not be produced at the first hearing.[9000040650001]
- The peremptory language of Order XIII Rule 1 aims to prevent fraud by late production of suspicious documents but is not penal in nature; courts have discretion under Rule 2 to admit late-filed documents, especially those above suspicion and necessary for a fair trial or proper decision of the case.[9000040650001]
- The expression "first hearing of the suit" in Order XIII Rule 1 refers to the hearing after pleadings are completed and before issues are framed under Order XIV.[9000040650006]
- Production, interrogation, discovery, and inspection of documents should be completed before the case is taken up for hearing on evidence.[9000040650006]
- On the Original Side of the Calcutta High Court, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure apply subject to the special rules prescribed for that side, including rules on affidavits of documents and inspection.[9000040650007]
- In commercial suits, affidavits of documents must be filed within the time prescribed by the Original Side rules, and timely disclosure is essential to avoid delays.[9000040650008][9000040650009]
- Non-compliance with rules on affidavits of documents contributes to case arrears and delays.[9000040650009]
- Last-minute or piecemeal disclosure of documents, especially after a case appears in the peremptory list, embarrasses the other side and should be disapproved, though courts may admit non-suspicious documents like official records if needed for a just decision.[9000040650010][9000040650011][9000040650012]
- Attorneys have a duty to take advice on evidence in advance, disclose documents promptly by letter and supplementary affidavit if newly discovered, and show good cause with affidavit for late disclosures after the peremptory list stage.[9000040650013]
- Courts should liberally grant permission for late disclosure of prima facie genuine documents but may refuse in cases of gross delay prejudicing the other side; failure to follow proper procedure may necessitate adjournments.[9000040650013]
- Late-disclosed documents may be allowed with costs imposed on the defaulting party.[9000040650014]
( 1 ) RULE 1 of Order XIII of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for production of documentary evidence "at the first hearing of the suit". The effect of non-production of documents, at the first hearing, is dealt with in Rule 2 of Order XIII, in the following language:"no documentary evidence in the possession or power of any party which should have been but has not been produced in accordance with the requirements of rule I shall be received at any subsequent stage of the proceedings unless good cause is shown to the satisfaction of the Court for the non-production thereof; and the Court receiving any such evidence shall record the reasons for so doing. " (underlined for emphasis ).
( 2 ) RULES 1 and 2, referred to above, apply to documents in the possession and power of parties, on which they intend to rely, and also to documents which are ordered to be produced by the Court. Where documents are not in the possession and power of the parties, they cannot and therefore need not be produced at the first hearing. The language of Rule 1 is peremptory. This is so because the object of the rule is to prevent fraud by late production of suspicious documents. The Rule is not, however
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
