Important points:
The power of the Court to invoke the provision under Order XVIII Rule 17 is discretionary and ought to be exercised very sparingly. The discretion shall be exercised judicially and on well accepted principles and not arbitrarily or capriciously. The power can be exercised by the Court at any stage of the suit, that is, before pronouncing judgment.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant in the suit O.S.No.224/2014 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Thrissur.

2. The suit is instituted for granting a decree for realisation of money. The plaintiff is a private limited company. The case of the plaintiff is that it is a dealer of M/s.Himadri Chemicals and Industries Limited, Calcutta and that the defendant had purchased carbon black on credit from the plaintiff as per three invoices dated 19.08.2011, 01.11.2011 and 27.07.2011. The plaintiff company has claimed a decree for realisation of the price of the carbon black allegedly sold by it to the defendant, with interest.

3. The defendant filed written statement in the suit contending that the plaintiff company is not a dealer of M/s.Himadri Chemicals and Industries Limited and that the plaintiff company is only an agent of the aforesaid company. The defendant also denied any direct transaction with the plaintiff and contended that the carbon black supplied to him by the manufacturer was of inferior quality.

4. On 02.07.2018, the Director of the plaintiff company was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A12 documents were marked. He was also cross-examined by the defendant. On 09.07.2018, the plaintiff filed an application as I.A.No.2004/2018 (Ext.P3) under Order VII Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'the Code') for receiving in evidence six documents. The plaintiff also filed another application as I.A.No.2005/2018 (Ext.P6) under Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code for recalling PW1 for marking the additional documents produced.

5. The defendant filed objection to Exts.P3 and P6 applications, contending that the attempt of the plaintiff is to fill up the lacuna in the evidence already adduced and therefore, the applications are liable to be dismissed.

6. As per Exts.P8 and P9 orders, the trial court dismissed Exts.P3 and P6 applications.

7. The plaintiff has filed this original petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality and propriety of Exts.P8 and P9 orders.

8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also the respondent.

9. Order VII Rule 14(1) of the Code provides that, where a plaintiff sues upon a document or relies upon document in his possession or power in support of his claim, he shall enter such documents in a list, and shall produce it in Court when the plaint is presented by him and shall, at the same time deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the plaint. Order VII Rule 14(3) of the Code states that, a document which ought to be produced in Court by the plaintiff when the plaint is presented, or to be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint but is not produced or entered accordingly, shall not without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit.

10. Before the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act 46 of 1999 and Act 22 of 2002, Order VII Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure dealt with two types of documents, namely, (1) the document in possession or power of the plaintiff, upon which he sues and (2) any other document on which he relies. In so far as the document on which the plaintiff sues is concerned, it was required to be produced when the plaint is presented. Any other document on which he relies could be filed later, provided a list is furnished under Order VII Rule 14(2) of the Code. Order XIII Rule 1(1) of the Code required the parties to produce all documentary evidence of every description in their possession or power, at or before the settlement of issues, if they had not already been filed. Order XIII Rule 2(1) of the Code permitted the production of documents at any subsequent stage of the proceedings only on showing good cause, the satisfaction of the Court, for their non-production earlier.

11. But the Amendment Acts of 1999 and 2002 introduced certain changes. Even after the amendment, as per Order V11 Rule 14(1) of the Code, t