Back
2016 Supreme(Ori) 885
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
A.K. RATH, J.
Dipti Ranjan Sahoo and Another – Petitioners
Versus
Kunjalata Sahoo and Others – Opposite Parties
C.M.P. No. 1438 of 2016
Decided On : 25-11-2016
For the Petitioner: Mr. B.S. Panigrahi.
For the Opposite Parties : Mr. N.C. Rout and Mr. S.K. Mishra.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that documents which should have been produced at the appropriate time may not be accepted without sufficient cause, and the court may impose costs for such non-compliance.
Headnote:
Marking of Documents - Civil Procedure Code - Order VIII Rule 1-A, Order XIII Rule 1 - ILR-CUT 966
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the ownership of a property and the admissibility of certain documents as exhibits after the closure of evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the documents in question were not produced at the appropriate time and without sufficient cause, and therefore, directed the defendants to pay costs to the counsel for the contesting defendants.
Issues: The main issue was the admissibility of documents as exhibits after the closure of evidence, and whether the defendants had provided sufficient cause for not producing the documents earlier.
Ratio Decidendi: The court referred to the Civil Procedure Code, specifically Order VIII Rule 1-A and Order XIII Rule 1, and also cited a previous judgment (ILR-CUT 966) to establish the principles regarding the production of documents and their admissibility.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the petition with the direction for the defendants to pay costs and allowed them to cross-examine the witness and raise the question of admissibility of the documents at the time of hearing.
JUDGMENT :
A.K. RATH, J.
1. By this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenge is made to the order dated 1.9.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Keonjhar in C.S. No. 150 of 2012, vide Annexure-6. By the said order, learned trial court marked certain documents as exhibits after closure of evidence.
2. The opposite party nos. 1 to 3 as plaintiffs instituted the suit for declaration that the suit schedule land and building standing thereon is the joint family property of the legal heirs of the deceased-Prahallad Sahoo and permanent injunction impleading the petitioners and opposite party nos. 4 to 12 as defendants. Pursuant to issuance of summons, the defendant nos. 1, 2 and 7 entered appearance and filed written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. Defendant nos. 4, 5, 8, 9 and 11 filed written statement supporting the stand of the plaintiffs. After closure of evidence, the suit was posted for argument. At this juncture, the proforma defendant nos. 8, 9 and 11 filed an application to mark the bills and receipts issued by the NESCO and the registration certificate of Maa Tarini Engineering issued by the General Manager, DIC, Keonjhar obtained under the R.T.I. Act as exhibits. The contesting defendant nos. 1, 2 and 7 filed objection stating therein that the bills and receipts were in possession of the defendants. The defendant nos. 9 and 11 have been examined as witnesses. The documents are not public documents. The defendants have not relied upon the said documents in the written statement. Acceptance of the documents after closure of evidence will cause serious prejudice. The same have been filed to patch up the lacuna. Learned trial court came to hold that the documents obtained under the R.T.I. Act issued by the General Manager, DIC, Keonjhar is a public document. The electricity bills and electricity receipts had been issued by the Public Official during discharge of his duties. Held so, learned trial court exhibited the documents as Ext.B, Ext.C and Ext.D respectively and granted liberty to the defendant nos. 1, 2 and 7 to cross-examine on those documents to D.W.1. Learned trial court further directed to the defendant nos. 8, 9 and 11 to procure D.W.1 for further cross-examination on those exhibits by defendant nos. 1, 2 and 7.
3. Heard Mr. B.S. Panigrahi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. N.C. Rout, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 6, 10 and 12.
4. Mr. Panigrahi, learned counsel for the petitioners argued with vehemence that after closure of evidence, the proforma defendants filed those documents to patch up the lacuna. The documents were in possession of the defendants. They have not relied on the same in the written statement. No explanation has been furnished as to why those documents are not marked at the time of examination of the witnesses.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 1 to 3 and learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 6, 10 and 12 supported the impugned order. They submitted that the court has ample power to mark the documents as exhibits. After hearing the parties, learned trial court has marked the documents as exhibits. Thus, no interference is called for.
6. Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 1-A of Order VIII, C.P.C. provides that where the defendant bases his defence upon a document or relies upon any document in his possession or power, in support of his defence or claim for set off or counter-claim, he shall enter such document in a list, and shall produce it in Court when the written statement is presented by him and shall, at the same time, deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the written statement. Sub-Rule (2) provides that where any such document is not in possession or power of the defendant, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose possession or power it is.
7. Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 1 of Order 13 C.P.C. provides that
