Documents not produced at the time of filing of pleadings or settlement of issues may be allowed to be produced at a subsequent stage if good cause is shown. However, the Court may refuse to allow production if the delay in production is not explained or if the documents are not relevant to the issues in controversy.

( 1 ) THIS petition arises out of the order dated 15. 11. 1997 passed by the Civil Judge, Delhi in Suit No. 303/1984 dismissing the application filed by the petitioners/defendants under Order 13, Rules 1 and 2 seeking for production of certain documents and also for allowing the petitioner to lead evidence on the basis of the said documents.

( 2 ) THE suit was instituted by the respondent/plaintiff seeking a decree for possession of the suit premises against Smt. Sheela Devi, who was the predecessor-ininterest of the petitioners/defendants. In the said suit, on the pleadings of the parties issues were framed and the suit was listed for recording evidence of the plaintiff. At that stage, ie. on 11. 8. 1997 the Court framed an additional issue with regard to non-joinder of necessary party. Immediately thereafter i. e. on 21. 8. 1997 the petitioners/defendants filed the aforesaid application under Order 13, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure contending inter alia that as the onus of proving the aforesaid issue has been placed upon the defendants the defendants are required to prove certain documents which are necessary for proper adjudication. The said application was considered and was dismissed by the aforesaid impugned order, out of which the present petition arises.

( 3 ) MR. Sandeep Sethi appearing for the petitioner submitted that the aforesaid documents, details of which are given in paragraph 10 of the petition are necessary and vital for proper adjudication and effective determination of the issues arising in the suit. He also submitted/that there was no delay in filing the aforesaid application as the same was filed immediately after framing of the additional issue in the suit. The said documents, according to him, were not in custody and possession of the defendants and were with the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants and immediately on recovery of the same and after being aware of the contents thereof the application has been filed. He also submitted that the said documents would disclose that Prakash Wanti who is admittedly the original owner of the suit property had executed a valid Will bequeath- ing of the property in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants and therefore, the said document is vital and necessary for the purpose of adjudication of the present suit.

( 4 ) MR. Talwar, appearing for the respondent however, submitted that the Trial Court rightly rejected the said application as it did not satisfy the preconditions for receiving additional documents at such a later stage. He relied upon the provisions of Order 13, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code while making his submission that a party cannot be allowed to produce documents at a late stage, for it was the duty of the defendants to produce all documents at the time of filing of the written statement and in no case later than the settlement of issues. He contended that the said documents have also no relevancy with the pleadings of the parties, he submitted that even assuming that the said documents were in custody of the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants and were recovered by them from her custody and possession after her death the same was discovered before II years from the date of filing of the application and that there is no explanation for not filing the same at the earliest.

( 5 ) THE language of Order 13, Rules 1 and 2, Civil Procedure Code is clear and unambiguous. The said provisions lay down that the parties have to file all documents in their custody and posession and on which they seek to rely upon, at the time of filing of their pleadings and in any case prior to the date of the settlement of issues. Rule 2 of Order 13 of the Code talks about the effect of non-production of the document providing that no documentary evidence in the possession or power of any party which should have been produced but has not been produced in accordance with the provisions of Rule I shall be received at any subse