A document that should have been produced earlier can be produced at a later stage with the leave of the court, and a hyper-technical approach should not be adopted to deny a party the opportunity to lead evidence.

Alok Singh, J.

1. Present petition is filed challenging the order dated 08.06.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabf.d, whereby the learned Trial Court has rejected the application of the plaintiffs to produce on record original registered Rehnnama dated 07.08.1970 and certified copy of registered Rehannama dated 27.01.1995, as well as certified copies of judgment and decree dated 08.06.1999 as additional evidence.

2. Plaintiff-petitioner herein filed suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction seeking the decree to the effect that order dated 28.03.2003 passed by the Collector, Ballabgarh, regarding redemption of mortgage of the land in question, is null and void and not binding upon the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs qua the suit land. After the evidence of the plaintiffs and defendants is closed, an application was moved by the plaintiffs to place on record the original registered Rehannama dated 07.08.1970, certified copy of registered Rehannama dated 27.01.1995 and certified copies of judgment and decree dated 08.06.1999 passed in Civil Suit No.242 of 16.05.1995. Learned Trial Court has rejected the application of the plaintiffs on the ground that there is no mention about these documents either in the plaint nor in the statement of the plaintiff PW1. It was further observed by the learned Trial Court that it has not been proved by the plaintiffs that despite due diligence, he could not place on record the documents sought to be filed, as additional evidence. It was further observed by the learned Trial Court that plaintiffs could not prove as to how the said documents are relevant for the purpose of deciding the case between the parties.

3. Undisputedly, documents sought to be filed as additional evidence are dated 07.08.1970, 27.01.1995 and 08.06.1999. First two documents are registered Rehannama and third document is judgment and decree. Undisputedly, these documents could not have been prepared during the pendency of the suit.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff states that all these documents were given to the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, but could not be produced by him in time and all these documents find mentioned in the statement of PW1.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that even after deletion of Order 18 Rule 17-A CPC, party seeking to produce additional evidence is required to state and prove that despite of due diligence same could not be produced earlier.

6. Order 7 Rule 14 CPC, Order 8 Rule 1-A and Order 13 Rule 1 CPC read as under:-

Order 7 Rule 14 CPC

"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 the possession or power of the plaintiff, he shall, where 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 or 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 plaintiffs witnesses, or, handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory."

Order 8 Rule 1-A CPC

"1-A. Duty of defendant to produce documents upon which relief is claimed or relied upon by him - (1) 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,