Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
KULDEEP MATHUR, J.
Smt. Nawal W/o Jagjivan Lal Patel – Appellant
Versus
Khem Ji S/o Shri Lal Ji – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14159 of 2022
Decided on : 31-01-2023
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VIII Rule 1A, (3) - Produce sale agreement - Seeking leave of court - Permission to produce documents at later stage - Aggrieved by order whereby application preferred by petitioner seeking leave of court to produce sale agreement and ikrarnama was rejected - Sound reasons were furnished justifying delay for non production of documents along with written statement.
Finding of the Court:
It is a settled law that while doing substantial justice, courts should ensure that procedural violations do not adversely affect cause of adversary party - Therefore, court should take a lenient view when an application is made for production of documents under Order VIII Rule 1A (3) - From perusal of application it is apparent that sound reasons were furnished justifying delay for nonproduction of documents along with written statement - Court below ought to have accepted application filed by defendants seeking permission to produce documents at a later stage - Impugned order passed is set aside.
Result: Application allowed.
ORDER :
1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-defendants feeling aggrieved by the order dated 16.08.2022, passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sagwara, District-Dungarpur whereby the application preferred by petitioner-defendants under Order VIII Rule 1A (3) C.P.C., seeking leave of the court to produce sale agreement dated 31.07.1995 and ikrarnama dated 20.02.2006 was rejected.
2. The facts essential for adjudication of the writ petition are as follows:-
3. The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for partition seeking permanent injunction against petitioner-defendants before the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sagwara, District- Dungarpur. In the plaint dated 29.06.2020, it was stated inter alia that the petitioner No.2 is brother of respondent; petitioner No.1 is sister in law; and petitioner No.3 is his nephew. The residential plot in Khasra No.1358/2 situated at Ramgarh is in joint ownership and possession of the respondent-plaintiff and the petitioner-defendants which was purchased by petitioner No.1 and respondent on 21.03.1996 for a sale consideration of Rs.3,06,000/-.
4. After service of notices, the petitioner-defendants filed written statement with the averment that the complete consideration of the residential property was paid by them, though the disputed property was registered in the names of petitioner No.1 and the respondent-plaintiff. The trial court framed issues on the basis of pleadings of the parties. Thereafter, the respondent-plaintiff and his son were examined as P.W-1 and P.W-2. At the stage when matter was fixed for evidence of the petitioner-defendants, an application dated 05.07.2022 was moved under Order VIII Rule 1A (3) seeking leave of the court to produce sale agreement dated 31.07.1995 and ikrarnama dated 20.02.2006 which was rejected by the learned trial court vide order dated 16.08.2022. Aggrieved by the order dated 16.08.2022, present writ petition has been filed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendants submitted that the learned trial court has not taken into consideration the fact that these documents (sale agreement dated 31.07.1995 and ikrarnama dated 20.02.2006.) were not available with them but were kept with the service documents of petitioner No.2-Jagjivan Lal. Learned counsel further submitted that the trial court vide order dated 16.08.2022 has rejected the application under Order VIII Rule 1A (3) in a perfunctory manner, solely on the ground of delay and documents being photocopies of the original. Learned counsel placed reliance on the judgments rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the following cases to fortify the submissions advanced:-
2. Sugandhi (dead) by Lrs. and Anr. vs. P. Rajkumar rep. By his power agent Imam Oli (SLP (C) No.16491/2019).
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff supported the impugned order dated 16.08.2022 passed by learned trial court. It was submitted that the defendants are not entitled as a matter of right to produce documents, particularly when the same does not find mention in the list of documents prepared under Order VIII Rule 1A (1); has not been produced along with the written statement. Learned counsel relied on judgments rendered by this Hon’ble Court at Jaipur in the following cases:-
2. Manoj Kumar vs. Gyan Chand & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9321/2022), decided on 04.07.2022.
3. Ramniwas & Ors. vs. Rameshwar & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13313/2011), decided on 11.12.2013.
7. Heard submissions advanced at bar and perused the material available on record.
8. Hon’ble the Supreme Court while dealing with similar eventuality, in the case of Levaku Pedda (supra) held as under:-
Production of documents – Deletion of Order XVIII Rule 17-A of CPC does not disentitle production of evidence at a later stage.
The second opportunity to produce documents under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) is for those who have produced documents with the written statement and have accountable reasons for not producing certain docu....
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.
The court has the discretion to allow the production of additional documents at a later stage of a suit if they are essential for the complete adjudication of the dispute and do not cause irreparable....
The main legal point established is that the discretion to grant leave for the admittance of a document as evidence should be exercised judiciously and based on a good cause shown by the defendant, a....
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.
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
