Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Rajesh Shankar, J.
Bhola Sk and ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Noorful Bewa and ors. – Opposite Parties
C.M.P. No. 267 of 2022
Decided On : 23-09-2022
Document Admittance - Civil Procedure Code - The court held that the defendant's failure to produce a document relied upon in the written statement at the time of filing, as required by Order VIII Rule I-A of CPC, resulted in the document not being admissible as evidence without the court's leave. The court emphasized that the discretion to grant leave should be exercised judiciously and based on a good cause shown by the defendant.
Fact of the Case:
The defendant filed a petition seeking leave to admit an unregistered sale deed as evidence, which was rejected by the lower court. The defendant argued that the rejection would adversely affect their case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the lower court did not err in refusing to grant leave to the defendant to produce the unregistered sale deed at a belated stage, as the defendant failed to show any good cause for the document's admittance.
Issues: The issue revolved around the defendant's application seeking leave to admit an unregistered sale deed as evidence and the lower court's rejection of the same.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the mandatory requirement for the defendant to produce documents relied upon in the written statement at the time of filing, as per Order VIII Rule I-A of CPC. It highlighted that the document can only be received in evidence with the leave of the court, which should be granted judiciously based on a good cause shown by the defendant.
Final Decision: The civil miscellaneous petition and the related application were dismissed by the court.
ORDER :
The present civil miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing/setting aside the order dated 05.03.2022 (Annexure-6 to the present petition) passed by the Civil Judge-I, Rajmahal in Original Suit No. 107/2013, whereby the application filed by the defendant no. 7/petitioner no. 4 on behalf of the defendants/petitioners seeking leave to admit the document i.e., unregistered deed of sale has been rejected.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that learned court below committed an error in rejecting the petitioners’ application seeking leave to admit an unregistered sale deed dated 02.01.2003. The petitioners had made specific averment in the said application that the original document of unregistered sale deed dated 02.01.2003 was lying in the other file of a criminal case, however, the learned court below has rejected the said application in a mechanical manner. If the petitioners are not allowed to bring the said document on record, their case will be adversely affected.
3. It would be relevant to refer the provisions of Order VIII Rule I-A of CPC, which is quoted as under :
(2) Where any such document is not in the possession or power of the defendant, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose possession or power it is.
(3) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the defendant under this rule, but, is not so produced 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 documents –
(a) produced for the cross-examination of the plaintiffs’ witnesses, or
(b) handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.]”
4. It would be evident from the aforesaid provision that if the defendant relies upon a document in support of his defence and the same is in possession or power, he has to enter the said document in a list to be produced in the court at the time of filing of the written statement and at the same time, he shall also have to file the said document and a copy thereof with the written statement. Sub-clause (3) of Rule 1-A, Order VIII CPC, however, provides that a document which was required to be produced in the court by the defendant, but is not produced, shall not be received in evidence without leave of the court. It is thus clear that production of document(s) relied upon by the defendant at the time of filing of the written statement is a mandatory requirement. In failure of doing so, the said document can only be received in evidence with the leave of the court. The discretion conferred upon the court to grant such leave is to be exercised judiciously. While there is no straitjacket formula, this leave can be granted by the court on a good cause being shown by the defendant.
5. The petitioner had failed to show any good cause before the trial court for granting leave to admit the said unregistered sale deed in evidence. Before this court also, the petitioner has failed to show that the said document is necessary for arriving at a just decision in the suit. On perusal of the application of the petitioner no. 4 filed before the learned court below seeking leave to admit an unregistered sale deed dated 02.01.2003 in evidence, it appears that he has made a vague statement in very first paragraph of the same that the original document was lying in the other file of the criminal case. He has not even properly stated as to in which particular criminal case the said document was lying. If the said petitioner w
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....
Unregistered sale deeds are inadmissible as evidence in property transactions requiring registration; compliance with registration is necessary for evidential validity.
Unregistered documents affecting immovable property are inadmissible as evidence under the Registration Act 1908.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that an unregistered sale deed may be admissible as evidence of an agreement to sell in a suit for specific performance under the Specific Relief A....
An unregistered Sale deed may be admissible for collateral purposes if proper procedures, including stamp duty payment, are followed, according to Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act.
Unregistered sale deeds cannot be admitted as evidence to establish rights due to statutory inadmissibility, even if previously marked as evidence under objection.
An unregistered sale deed cannot be admitted as evidence for ownership in a declaration suit, violating statutory provisions of the Registration Act and Transfer of Property Act.
An unregistered document affecting immovable property may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that while an unregistered document may be inadmissible for the main purpose, it could still be used for collateral purpose under Section 49 of the....
Order VIII Rule 1 A(3) of C.P.C. provides that documents which have not been produced along with written statement can be produced later on, only with permission of court.
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
