Point of Law: Power of the court to receive additional documents which were not produced along with the written statement is protected under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) and if the court feels that leave is liable to be granted to receive documents to address the real controversy between the parties, additional documents can be received in evidence.

JUDGMENT :

This is an original petition filed challenging order passed by the Principal Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram in I.A.No.2694 of 2018 in O.S.No.723 of 2011, for the third time.

2. This case is a typical example to see how a petition matter involving reception of documents would stall the trial.

3. The challenge in this original petition is Ext.P8 order dated 01.10.2021 in I.A.No.2694 of 2018(hereinafter will be referred as IA) in O.S.No.723 of 2011.

4. O.S.No.723 of 2011 marked as Ext.P1 in this matter is a suit for money filed by the plaintiff who is the respondent herein where the petitioner herein got arrayed as the defendant. The original petitioner filed IA to receive additional documents after trial had commenced. The learned Sub Judge allowed the IA and received documents initially. However, the respondent herein challenged the said order in O.P.(C)No.3043 of 2018 before this Court and as per order dated 18.12.2018 marked as Ext.P6 herein, the said order was set aside and the court below was directed to re-consider the same and pass appropriate orders.

5. Later, in tune with Ext.P6 order, the learned Sub Judge re-considered the IA subject to payment of cost of Rs.1,000/-as per order dated 01.07.2019. The respondent herein again challenged the said order before this Court by filing O.P.(C)No.1935 of 2019. This Court, by Ext.P7 order dated 29.10.2019, set aside the said order and directed the Sub Court to pass order afresh in the IA. It was thereafter Ext.P8 order dated 01.10.2021 was passed and thereby the learned Munsiff dismissed the application.

6. The learned counsel for the original petitioner would contend that one Compact Disc containing the recording of threatening calls made by the respondent to the petitioner and other three sets of documents found out later were sought to be received as per the IA. However, as per Ext.P8 order, the learned Munsiff dismissed the same. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Sub Court failed to consider the observation made by this Court in Ext.P7 judgment holding the view that settlement of the dispute on merit would lead to finality. Further, the documents sought to be received are intended to prove the definite contention raised in paragraph 16 of the written statement (Ext.P2 herein). It is specifically contended that the Sub Judge did not follow the ratio in the decision reported in [2020 KHC 6637], Sugandhi (died) by Lrs. and Another v. P.Rajkumar and also the decision reported in [2010 (4) KHC 920], Bhanumathi v. K.R.Sarvothaman and Others. Thus, Ext.P8 order sought to be set aside.

7. Whereas, the learned counsel for the respondent justified the order. Paragraph 8 of the impugned order has been read out in this regard. In paragraph 8 of the impugned order, the learned Sub Judge observed that the documents now sought to be brought on record were not matters which found a place in the pleading of the defendant. Any amount of evidence tendered by a party without sufficient pleadings would go out of the zone of consideration. If the defendant was in possession of records of his transactions with the plaintiff, his brother-in-law, his wife and his son, he was expected to disclose such aspects in his pleadings. After placing on record that he had repaid the borrowed amounts to the plaintiff through the wife, son and brother-in-law of the plaintiff alone could be permitted to tender evidence in that regard. The defendant cannot be permitted to set up a new case which he never had while filing the written statement. On such a consideration, the application could only fail.

8. Similarly, paragraph 9 dealing with filing of additional affidavit as stated in Ext.P7 order also has been highlighted to contend that the reasons cited for non production of these documents at an earlier point of time also cannot be justified.

9. Before analysing the merits of the argument, I am inclined to refer the decision in Sugandhi's case(Supra). In this decision, the Honourable Suprem