The words "further documents" as occurring in Rule 5(2) of Chapter VIII of OS Rules contemplate two broad categories of documents: (1) Documents that are neither the basis of the plaintiff's suit nor intended to be relied on by either party at the trial; and (2) Documents that form the basis of the suit or intended to be relied on by either party at the trial, but were not filed with the plaint or at the first hearing of the suit, and as to which a party has lost the right of filing in the Court as of right, but may be admitted by the Court subject to such terms as it may deem fit.

( 1 ) THE suit was filed on 28. 9. 91. Written the suit was filed on 28. 9. 91. Written statement was filed on l2. 3. 1993. On l4. 9. 1993,four weeks timewas allowed to the parties for filing the documents. Admission/denial of documents was carried out on20. 1. 1994,21. 1. 1994 and 24. 1. 1994. Issues were framed on24. 10. 1994. The Court allowed six weeks time to the parties for filing the list ofwitnesses before posting the case for trial. At this stage, both the learned Counselfor the parties have insisted on time being allowed for filing "further documents"by reference to Chapter VIII, Rule 5 (2) of Delhi High Court ( Original Side ) Rules,1967.

( 2 ). Learned Counsel for the parties were asked about the nature of documentswhich they proposed to file. It was stated by the learned Counsel that they were free to file any documents considered by them to be relevant and for thatpurpose they were entitled to an adjournment as of right. This was not onlycontemplated by rules but this has also been the practice consistently followed inthe High Court of Delhi (Original Side) submitted the learned Counsel.

( 3 ). 1 have heard them on the question whether after the framing of issues, whenthe stage for filing of the documents was already over, the parties could bepermitted to file further documents as of right, and if so, the nature of documentspermissible to be filed.

( 4 ). Delhi High Court ( Original Side) Rules have been framed in exercise of thepower conferred by Sections 122 and 129 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 andsection 7 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966. In case of conflict, the Original Siderules framed by High Court would override the provisions of Civil Procedure Code (See- M/s. Printpak Machinery Ltd. v. M/s. fay Kay Paper Congesters, AIR 1979 DELHI 217f. B.)

( 5 ). The High Court exercising its original jurisdiction is a Civil Court. It isgoverned by the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, the Originalside Rules (hereinafter OS Rules, for short) have been framed with the idea ofsupplementing the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. They would overridesuch provisions of Civil Procedure Code as may be inconsistent with the OS Rules. The object behindframing of the rules was obviously to provide the Judge with a more firm grip overthe trial so as to make it more expeditious because a Court of higher status, seizedof matters of higher denomination assisted by the members of the High Court baror the Counsel appearing on the original side being better equipped and wellconversant with. the civil law - substantive and procedural - the cases arcexpected to be tried with more expedition, avoiding prolixity and laxity at the trial. The OS Rules have to be interpreted with that underlying object inview, avoidingany such interpretation as would result in contributing delay or laxity otherwiseavoidable at the trial.

( 6 ). Let the relevant provision of the Code of Civil Procedure be examined in thefirst instance. Order 7 Rule 14 Civil Procedure Code enjoins a plaintiff suing upon any document inhis possession or power to be produced with the plaint. Documents though notbasis of suit but on which the plaintiff relies, whether in his possession or poweror not, have to be listed and the list annexed with the plaint. Rule 18 providespenalty of exclusion of such documents from trial (except with the leave of thecourt) upon the plaintiff if not filed or listed in accordance with Rule 14.

( 7 ). The documents relied on by a defendant, whether in his possession orpower, in support of his defence, set off or counter claim have also to be listed andthe list filed with the written statement. If the documents be not in possession orpower of the defendant it has to be mentioned in whose possession or power theyare. The Court may grant time for filing such list. Default on the part of thedefendant would invite the penalty of documents being excluded from evidence onbehalf of the defendant except with