The court concluded that the requirement for original documents pertains only to their production for inspection, allowing plaintiffs to avoid filing originals.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done in physical Court. Hybrid mode is permitted in cases where permission is being sought from the Court.

2. The present petition challenges the impugned order dated 10th April, 2019 by which the Trial Court in CS No.8953/16 titled Namit Verma & Ors. v. Momman Khan & Ors. has directed the production of original documents in the application under Order XIII Rule 1 CPC filed by the Plaintiffs/Petitioners (hereinafter "Plaintiffs"). The Plaintiffs herein had sought permission merely for dispensation of the requirement to file original documents on record. The Plaintiffs instead sought directions to produce the relevant original documents in Court, for the Defendants to inspect the same at a convenient date, in terms of the judgment of the ld. Single Judge of this Court in Aktiebolaget Volvo and Ors. v. R. Venkatachalam and Ors., 160 (2009) DLT 100. The relevant extract of the said decision is as under:

"12. The CPC in Order 13 Rule 1 for the first time provides for the parties to "produce" before the settlement of issues "all the documentary/evidence in original where the copies thereof have been filed along with the plaint or written statement.

A reading thereof shows that the reference to the documents in the earlier provisions noticed above is not necessarily to original documents and the documents referred to in the earlier provisions could be copies.

Xxx

13. Thus reference in CPC to documents, except in Order 13 Rule 1 is not necessarily to the original documents and includes copies within the document.

Thus the contention of the Counsel for the defendant of Order 7 Rule 14 or Order 8 Rule 1A of the CPC requiring originals to be filed is not found to be correct.

Xxx

23. When at the stage of proof of documents, the requirement under Section 62 of the Evidence Act is only of production of original for inspection of the court, Order 13 Rule 1 of the CPC requiring production of originals has to be necessarily meant as production of original for inspection of the court and not as filing of the original. Significantly, Order 13 Rule 1 also uses both expressions "produce" in connection with original and "filed" in connection with the copies. The different expression used, together with definition/meaning of produce cited by Counsel for plaintiffs also lend me to hold that the original documents are only intended to be produced i.e. to be given inspection of while the copies are to be filed.

24. I, therefore, find that the scheme of the aforesaid legislative provisions also permits production of originals for inspection only and filing of copies only.

Xxx

26. The aforesaid should not be understood as laying down that in all cases the filing of photocopies is enough. If the document is doubtful or for any other reason required by the court to remain in original on the file of the court, the court can always direct so and a party cannot insist on filing of copy only. There may be other instances where filing of the original is necessary, as in the case of documents like Will, Agreements which may be terminated/cancelled by destruction. The courts can in such cases insist upon the original being filed on the record."

3. The above position is also reiterated in the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 (hereinafter "2018 Rules") which exempts parties from filing original documents. It is sufficient if the same are produced for inspection. The relevant rules are Rules 2 and 3 of Chapter VII of the 2018 Rules, which read as under:

"CHAPTER VII

APPEARANCE BY DEFENDANT, WRITTEN STATEMENT, SET OFF AND COUNTER-CLAIM