A defendant may produce documents at a later stage in civil proceedings if a bona fide explanation for the delay is provided, and no surprise is caused to the opposing party.

JUDGMENT :

J.C. DOSHI

Order passed below Exh.523 in RCS No.199 of 2001 dated 30/12/2021 by the trial court is sought to be challenged in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India whereby the petitioners – defendants no.9 and 10 sought to produce the documents vide list produced at Exh.524 wherein the trial court mainly relied upon the reasons that defendant no.9 and 10 are intended to produce the document at belated stage; without any explanation and seven witnesses from the plaintiff side and two witnesses from the defendant side are examined and hence reason to allow the production of document at belated stage and as such passed the impugned. However, while passing such order, the trial court allowed document at Sr. No.1, 2, 7, 10, 44 and 54 to 56 but the application for production of other documents are rejected.

2. The short facts of the case are that Regular Civil Suit No.199 of 2001 is filed seeking declaration, permanent injunction and other ancillary reliefs qua the suit land. It is the case of the petitioners that they came to be impleaded as party defendants no.9 and 10 as per order passed by trial court. It is the case of the petitioners that application seeking production of certain documents came to be filed at Exh.523 at the time of evidence of the plaintiff which came to be partly allowed and hence the present petition is filed.

2. Learned Senior Counsel Mr.P C Kavina appearing for the petitioner submits that defendant nos.9 and 10 have been joined as necessary party in the year 2018. Since 2019 on-wards, the COVID was operating and proceedings of the suit were standstill. No sooner the COVID goes, the petitioner filed application at Exh.523 seeks leave of this court to produce documents at later stage and filed the list of documents at Exh.524. Learned Senior Counsel Mr.Kavina would further submit that they were go by particulars stated in this list of documents wherein upto Sr. No.56 are certified copy of the proceedings undertaken of revenue side; some transaction in paper cuttings except that there is no other document which the petitioner is intending to produce.

2.1 Learned Senior Counsel Mr.P C Kavina would further submit that as far as the document in a list of Exh.524 is concerned, the contesting party are aware of the same and production was not taken by them surprise and in this circumstances the court ordinarily should grant leave in favour of the petitioner.

2.2 Upon above submissions, learned Senior Counsel Mr.P C Kavina appearing for the petitioner would submit to allow this petition.

3. On the other hand, learned Counsel Ms.Megha Jani appearing for the contesting respondent while supporting the impugned order would submit that as many as seven witnesses on plaintiff side are examined and two witnesses from the defendant side are examined. The petitioner without offering any plausible explanation filed the documents at the belated stage which may cause prejudice to the right of the plaintiff and therefore trial court has rightly rejected the application seeking production of document and as such order is not suffering from palpable irregularities or jurisdictional error and therefore she would submit to dismiss the present petition.

4. The issue in question has been recently addressed by this court in the case of Tata Chemicals Limited Versus Gujarat State Fertilizer And Chemicals Ltd. [2024-GUJHC-0-39626 wherein after referring KK Veluswamy Vs. N. Palanisamy reported in (2011) 11 SCC 275 and Sugandhi (dead) by Lrs. And Anr Vs. P.Rajkumar Rep.By His Power Agent Imam Oli reported in [2020(10) SCC 706] , this Court has held in paragraph 8 and 9 as under:

“8. Regard being held to the rival submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties, it