Right of a party to file a document at the time of hearing of suit is still there.

(Revision is preferred against the fair and decretal order in I.A.No.490 of 2004 in O.S.No.197 of 1999 dated 19.7.2004 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Chengam, Tiruvannamalai)

The defendants, in O.S.No.197 of 1999 pending on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Chengam, Tiruvannamalai District, have filed the above civil revision petition, challenging an order dated 19.7.2004 passed in I.A.No.490 of 2004, permitting the plaintiffs to file certain documents as additional documents before the commencement of the trial.

2. Admittedly, the respondents filed a suit in O.S.No.197 of 1999 praying a decree of partition of the suit schedule property into two equal halves and for the allotment of one half share to them and for a decree for delivery of possession. The revision petitioners have already filed the written statement and the suit is ripe for trial.

3. At that stage, the respondents filed I.A.No.490 of 2004 seeking permission to file certain documents as additional documents. The said petition was resisted by the petitioners herein, primarily on the ground that there was no pleading with regard to document Nos.4 to 6 and that therefore, no documents could be received in evidence, without there being a pleading.

4. By a fair and decretal order dated 19.7.2004, the trial Court allowed the application, on the ground that the plaintiffs should have an opportunity to prove their case and that by permitting the plaintiffs to file the documents, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioners herein. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have filed the above civil revision petition.

5. Mr.V.Lakshminarayanan, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners contended -

a) that after the amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure, it is mandatory for the plaintiffs to file all the documents necessary to prove their case, along with the plaint under Order VII Rule 14 and a similar duty is cast upon the defendants also under Order VIII Rule 1-A; and

b) that the entire case of the respondents (plaintiffs) rested upon their purchase of undivided half share of one of the co-owners by name Sankarayya @ Sankar Bakthar on 10.2.1999 and that there are no pleadings at all which can be related to the documents now sought to be filed as additional documents.

In short, it is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that a person who failed to file the documents in his possession, at the time of presentation of the plaint, is dis-entitled to file them at a later stage and that no amount of evidence can be admitted, without there being any pleading relating to the same. The learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in MADANLAL vs. SHYAMLAL ((2002) 1 SCC 535)), for the proposition that "documents not produced at the appropriate stage shall not be received by the Court unless good cause is shown" for their non production at the relevant time.

6. Mr. V.C. Janardhanan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that in view of the provisions of Order XIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the parties to a suit are entitled to file all the documentary evidence, on or before the settlement of issues in the suit and that therefore in view of the said provision, the directive contained in Order VII Rule 14 cannot be taken to be absolute and indispensable. Moreover, according to the learned counsel for the respondents, it is always open to the petitioners to object to the marking of the documents at the time of trial, if the documents are found to be objectionable. In other words, the stage has not come for the petitioners to object to the documents either on the ground of their admissibility or on the ground of their truth and validity.

7. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties.

8. Before the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act 46 of 1999 and Act 22 of 2002, Order VII Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure dealt w