Back
2003 Supreme(HP) 371
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
M.R. VERMA, J.
Lt. Col. S.J. Chaudhari - Appellant
Versus
Mr. Raj Kumar Brijendra Singh - Respondent
OMP No. 8 of 2003 in O.S. No. 27 of 2001
Decided On : 01-05-2003
For the Plaintiff : Neeraj Gupta.
For the Defendant : Sharwan Dogra.
The court can allow the plaintiff to produce documents at a later stage if the non-production was not intentional, deliberate, or mala fide, and the documents are relevant to the dispute, without causing prejudice to the defendant at the current stage of the proceedings.
Headnote:
Order 7 Rule 14 - Application for Leave to Produce Documents - The court allowed the plaintiff to produce documents at a later stage, exercising its discretion judiciously and liberally in a genuine case to enable substantial justice to the parties.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed an application under Order 7 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure to produce documents at a later stage, as they were not filed with the plaint initially.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the non-production of documents was not intentional, deliberate, or mala fide, and the documents were relevant to the dispute. It allowed the plaintiff to produce the documents, stating that no prejudice would be caused to the defendant at the pre-issue stage.
Issues: The issue was whether the plaintiff should be granted leave to produce documents at a later stage, considering they were not filed with the plaint initially.
Ratio Decidendi: The court can exercise its discretion to permit the plaintiff to file documents at a later stage if the non-production was not intentional, deliberate, or mala fide, and the documents are relevant to the dispute, without causing prejudice to the defendant at the current stage of the proceedings.
Final Decision: The application was allowed, and the plaintiff was granted leave to produce the documents as prayed for.
JUDGMENT :
M.R. Verma, J.
This application under Order 7 Rule 14 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereafter referred to as 'the Code') has been preferred by the applicant/plaintiff (hereafter referred to as 'the plaintiff) for grant of leave to produce in evidence a few documents which were not filed with the plaint
2. Brief facts leading to the presentation of this application are that the plaintiff has instituted the suits for specific performance, possession and injunction. The suit is being contested by the respondent/defendant (hereafter referred to as 'the defendant') and at present is at pre-issue stage. Since some of the documents which ought to have been filed with the plaint, were not so filed, hence this application by the plaintiff.
3. It is averred in the application that there had been multiple litigation between the parties regarding the property in suit and the plaintiff was under the bona fide belief that the documents, now sought to be produced, had been produced by his counsel. However, at the time of admission/denial of the documents the plaintiff found that such documents were not on the file and on discussion with his counsel he was told that such documents ought to have been filed with the plaint. It is also claimed that the documents, now sought to he produced, are copies of documents forming part of records of the court in earlier suit and that of P & T Department and are incapable of being fabricated. It is, thus, prayed that non-production of such documents at the time of filing of the plaint being a bona fide mistake, plaintiff maybe granted leave to file such documents now.
4. The application has been resisted by the defendant by filing a reply averring therein that grant of leave to file/produce the documents at this stage will prejudice the defendant. The averments in the application that non-production was for the reasons stated therein have been denied and it is claimed that there had been lack of diligence on the part of the plaintiff and he cannot be now permitted to correct the lapses.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant record.
6. Rule 14 Order 7 of the code provides for production of document on which plaintiff sues or relies and reads as follows :
"14. Production of document on which plaintiff sues or relies.- (1) 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.
(2) Where any such document is not in possession or power of the plaintiff, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose possession or power it is.
(3) 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 to 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.
(4) Nothing in this rule shall apply to document produced for the cross-examination of the plaintiff's witnesses, or, handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory."
7. It is clear from a bare reading of the aforesaid provisions that where plaintiff sues upon a document of relies upon a document in his possession or power to "support his claim, he shall produce it in the Court when the plaint is presented. However, in the event of the plaintiff having failed to produce such document(s) along with the plaint, he can so produce the document with the leave of the Court at the hearing of the suit. Thus, it is within the discretion of the Court to permit take plaintiff to file such documents which ought to have been filed along with the plaint, at a later stage though such a discretion has to be exercised judiciously but liberally in a genuine case for the r
