The question urged for a decision in this petition is whether a document which ought to have been produced along with the plaint or written statement or, original of documents which ought to have been produced on or before the settlement of issues could be produced at a later stage and the court has the power to receive such document in evidence?

2. Short facts necessary for a decision of this question are:

Petitioner is plaintiff in O.S.No.39 of 2007 of the court of learned Sub Judge, Kochi. That suit was being tried along with a few other suits treating O.S.No.39 of 2007 as the main suit. Issues were settled on 11-12-2007 and evidence of petitioner/plaintiff was over by 14-01-2010. Cases were posted for further evidence. While so, respondents/defendants filed Ext.P1, application seeking leave of the court to receive in evidence certain documents stating that they could trace out the documents only by then. Petitioner resisted that application contending that production of documents at that stage is not permissible. It was also contended that there was no justifiable reason for the belated production of the documents. Objections were overruled and Ext.P1, application was allowed by Ext.P3, order dated September 3, 2010. Learned Sub Judge observed in Ext.P3, order that in the interest of justice application is being allowed. That order is under challenge in this proceeding under Article 227 of the Constitution. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that in view of the amendment to Order XIII of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code”) by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment Act, 2002) whereby Rule 2 of Order XIII of the Code was deleted, power of the court to receive in evidence documents which are not produced along with plaint/written statement and on or before the settlement of issues is taken away and hence the court below could not receive in evidence documents produced along with Ext.P1, application filed at the time of hearing. Learned counsel has referred me to the various provisions of Order VII, VIII and XIII of the Code and the changes brought about by the Amendment Acts of 1976, 1999 and 2002.

3. To understand the contention advanced and answer the questions raised, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Code as amended in the year 1976 and thereafter. The relevant provisions are Rules 14, 15, 17 and 18 of Order VII, Rules 1 and 8A of Order VIII and Rules 1 and 2 of Order XIII of the Code as amended in the year 1976 and thereafter and Rule 4 of Order XVIII introduced by Amendment Act of 2002. The said provisions read as under:

After Amendment Act 104 of 1976

Order VII:

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) 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.

List of other documents.

Rule 15: Statement in case of documents not in plaintiffs possession or power.

Where any such document is not in the possession or power of the plaintiff, he shall, if possible, state in whose possession or power it is.

Rule 17: Production of shop-book.

(1) Save in so far as is otherwise provided by the Bankers/Books Evidence Act, 1891, where the document on which the plaintiff sues is an entry in shop-book or other account in his possession or power, the plaintiff shall produce the book or account at the time of filing the plaint, together with a copy of the entry on which he relies.

Original entry to be marked and returned.

(2) The Court, or such officer as it appoints in this behalf, shall forthwith mark the document for the purpose of identification and, after examining and comparing the copy with the o