High Court Of Calcutta
Prabir Kumar Samanta
KEJRIWAL ENTERPRISES - Appellant
Versus
GENERAL MANAGER, ORDINANCE FACTORY - Respondent
C. O. 407 Of 2003
Decided On : 03/26/2004
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - Amendment Act 46 of 1999 - Omission of Order 18 Rule 17a - Insertion of Order 7 Rule 14(3) by Amendment Act 22 of 2002 - Effect - Documents not presented with plaint or entered in list - Can be tendered in evidence with leave of court - Leave to be obtained under Order 7 Rule 14(3) and not Order 18 Rule 17a.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of money along with interest. At the hearing, the plaintiff made an application to adduce evidence as to the registration of its partnership business by recalling P.W. 1. The Trial Court rejected the application holding that the amended Code of Civil Procedure, which came into force with effect from 1.7.2002, has not provided for production of evidence which has not been disclosed at the time of presentation of the plaint.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court allowed the revision petition and set aside the impugned order. It held that the documents, which have not been presented along with the plaint and also have not been entered in the list that has been added or annexed to the plaint as per the provisions of Order 7 Rule 14 sub-rule 1 of the Code could still be tendered in evidence with the leave of the Court which the Court may grant in exercise of jurisdiction under sub-rule (3) of Rule 14 of Order 7 of the code as amended by Amendment Act 22 cf 2002.
Issues: Whether the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the plaintiff's application to adduce evidence as to the registration of its partnership business by recalling P.W. 1 on the ground that the amended Code of Civil Procedure, which came into force with effect from 1.7.2002, has not provided for production of evidence which has not been disclosed at the time of presentation of the plaint.
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court held that the Trial Court erred in rejecting the plaintiff's application. It held that the omission of Order 18 Rule 17a by Amendment Act 46 of 1999 and the insertion of Order 7 Rule 14(3) by Amendment Act 22 of 2002 did not bar the plaintiff from tendering the documents in evidence with the leave of the Court. The leave of the Court could be obtained under Order 7 Rule 14(3) and not Order 18 Rule 17a.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the revision petition and set aside the impugned order. It directed the Trial Court to allow the plaintiff's application.
( 1 ) THE plaintiff/petitioner being a registered partnership firm has filed the Commercial Suit No. 219 of 1993 in the City Civil Court at Calcutta praying for a decree for a sum of Rs. 88, 599, 90 ps. along with the interest thereon at the rate of 24% p. a. from the date of filing of the suit till full realization from the defendant/opposite parties namely the Ordinance factory, Khanari, Jabbalpur and other authorities of the Central government. Though the plaintiff/petitioner has filed the above suit as being the registered partnership firm but the Firm Registration Certificate in respect thereof was not filed while the plaint was presented. At the hearing of the suit, the plaintiff/petitioner made an application to adduce evidence as to the registration of its partnership business by recalling P. W. 1. The said application has been rejected by the impugned order.
( 2 ) THE learned Trial Court is of the view that the Code of Civil procedure, as amended which has come into force with effect from 1. 7. 2002 has not provided for production of evidence which has not been disclosed at the time of presentation of the plaint. In particular, the learned Trial court has proceeded on the basis that since Order 18 Rule 17a of the code has been omitted from the Code by Amendment Act 46 of 1999 having the effect from 1. 7. 2002, there is no scope for production of such evidence at the stage of trial which has not been disclosed at the time of presentation of the plaint as per the provisions of Order 7 Rule 14 of the code.
( 3 ) BEFORE amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure by Amendment act 46 of 1999 which has taken effect from 1. 7. 2002, Rule 17a of Order 18 of the Code was inserted into the Code by Act 104 of 1976 with effect from 1. 2. 1977. The said Rule read as under:"procedure of evidence previously known or which could not be produced despite due diligence. Where a party satisfies the Court that after the exercise of due diligence, any evidence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when that party was leading his evidence, the Court may permit that party to produce that evidence at a later stage on such terms as may appear to it to be just. "
( 4 ) WHILE Rule 17a of Order 18 was introduced by Act 104 of 1976, the provisions of Order 7 Rule 14 read as under: production of document on which plaintiff sues.-
(1) Where a plaintiff sues upon a document in his possession or power, he shall produce it in Court when the plaint is presented, and shall at the same time deliver the document or a copy thereof to be filed with the plaint. (2) List of other documents.-Where he relies on any- other documents (whether in his possession or power or not) as evidence in support of his claim, he shall enter such documents in a list to be added or annexed to the plaint. "
( 5 ) IT is interesting to note that while by Amendment Act 46 of 1999 the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17a of the Code has been omitted with effect from 1. 7. 2002, the Amendment Act 22 of 2002, has inserted sub- rule (3) to Rule 14 of Order 7 with effect from the self-same date i. e. 1. 7. 2002 which reads as under:"a document which ought to be produced in Court by the plaintiff when the plaint is presented, or to be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint but is not produced or entered accordingly, shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit. "
( 6 ) ORDER 7 Rule 14 of the Code before its amendment by Act 46 of 1999 stood as under:"rule 14.-Production of document on which plaintiff sues.- (1) where a plaintiff sues upon a document in his possession or power, he shall produce it in Court when the plaint is presented, and shall at the same time deliver the document or a copy thereof to be filed with the plaint. (2) List of other documents.-Where he relies on any other documents (whether in his possession or power or not) as evidence in sup
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.