Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K. BABU, J
Shukkoor S/o Nabeesa – Appellant
Versus
Asharaf S/o Abdul Rahiman – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
The challenge in this Original Petition is to an order dismissing an application filed by the plaintiffs under Order XI Rule 14 of CPC in O.S.No.61/2020 on the file of the Subordinate Judges’ Court, Perumbavoor.
2. The suit was instituted for partition of the plaint schedule property. The plaintiffs claimed that the property originally belonged to one Sri.Mummy Anthruman, the father of plaintiff No.1. Respondent Nos. 1,3,7 and 8/ defendant Nos.1, 3, 7 and 8 are the great grandchildren of Sri.Mummy Anthruman.
3. Defendant Nos.3,7 and 8 pleaded in the written statement that Sri.Mummy Anthruman is their father.
4. The petitioners filed I.A.No.4/2021 seeking a direction to defendant Nos. 3, 7 & 8 to produce their Passports and school certificates. The Court below dismissed the application.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the documents sought to be produced are relevant for the determination of the questions involved in the suit.
7. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioners failed to establish that the production of the documents is exp
The court emphasized that the production of documents relevant to the title in a partition suit must be considered judiciously, and unjust dismissal of such requests is not permissible.
The court reaffirmed that the discretion to allow late document production should prioritize substantial justice over procedural technicalities.
Documents not mentioned in the plaint cannot be introduced later without court permission, emphasizing the necessity of timely submission under Order VII Rule 14 CPC.
Timely submission of documents and the requirement for sufficient cause to be shown for their delayed filing are crucial principles in civil procedure.
The court reinforced that parties must have a fair opportunity to present evidence, especially in cases of partition claims involving ancestral property.
(1) High Court has to exercise its supervisory powers sparingly and in appropriate cases to keep subordinate Courts in their authority. (2) Where a suit is based on documents, furnishing of copy of d....
Due diligence must be established for producing additional evidence in appellate proceedings; the failure to show diligence results in application rejection.
The court established that procedural delays should not prevent the introduction of relevant evidence, prioritizing substantial justice.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
