Production of Documents – If the documents referred to in the pleadings much-less the written statement is not attached, it can be produced in evidence later on.
Exhibition of Documents – Mere exhibition of a document is only for the purpose of identification of the document – A document filed by a party and exhibited by the Court do not become part of the original record at the time of its production, rather it become, the part of the record after its formal proof

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.8 R.1 & O.13 R.1 – Written Statement—Non-filing of within 90 days—Provisions are directory in nature and not mandatory – No litigant can be non-suited on account of not strictly following the provisions.
       (B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.8 R.1 – Written Statement – Production of Documents – If a document which ought to be produced in court by defendant is not so produced, same can be received in evidence during hearing – O.11 R.15 provides description to court to grant leave to give opportunity to take the documents in evidence afterwards – Plaintiff cannot compel defendant to produce documents along with written statement which can later on be produced in evidence – No prejudice be caused in cause of exhibition of documents referred to as these would be considered by trial in evidence only after its formal proof – Petition dismissed.
       (C) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 O.8 R.1 – Written Statement – Production of Documents – If the documents referred to in the pleadings much-less the written statement is not attached, it can be produced in evidence lateron, as the discretion vests with the Court to receive such a document by granting permission to the party to the suit, as the case may be.
       (D) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 O.8 R.1 – Written Statement – Exhibition of Documents – Petitioner contended that the trial Court ought not to have exhibited the documents produced by respondent along with his affidavit, because the same were never disclosed or relied upon by the respondents at the time of filing of their written statement – Contention rejected – Held; mere exhibition of a document by in itself does not dispense with its formal proof, unless the same is formally proved – Mere exhibition of a document is only for the purpose of identification of the document – A document filed by a party and exhibited by the Court do not become part of the original record at the time of its production, rather it become, the part of the record after its formal proof. (Para 11)

JUDGMENT

Mr. Ramendra Jain, J. (Oral).:- Through the instant revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitutionof India, challenge has been laid to the order dated 06.12.2017 of the trial Court, whereby it has dismissed the application of the petitioner- plaintiff under Order 8 Rule 1-A and Order 13 Rules 1, 3, 4 and 6 read with Section 151 CPC.

2. In nutshell, the petitioner filed a suit for declaration to the effect that respondent No.1 being a self styled fictitious Samiti had no right to interfere into the affairs of the petitioner and thus it be restrained from doing so.

3. After completion of the pleadings and framing of issues, the petitioner concluded its evidence. To rebut the evidence of the petitioner, the respondents examined four witnesses, who were duly cross-examined by the petitioner. Thereafter, respondent No.4- Ashok Grover appeared as DW5 and tendered affidavit into his evidence in affirmative along with documents Ex.DW5/1 to DW5/153. Raising objection to the production of the aforesaid documents Ex.DW5/1 to Ex.DW5/153, the petitioner filed an application under Order 8 Rule 1-A and Order 13 Rules 1, 3, 4 and 6 read with Section 151 CPC pleading: (i) that the said documents were inadmissible in evidence being not legally proved and thus could not have been exhibited without their formal proof, (ii) The trial Court ought not to have permitted the respondents to produce the same as they were never disclosed by them while filing their written statement nor their copies were annexed with the written statement.

4. After obtaining reply and hearing both sides, the trial Court vide impugned order dated 06.12.2017 dismissed application of petitioner for the following reason:-

(i) the plaintiff has an occasion to raise objection qua admissibility and mode of proof of the documents i.e. Ex.DW5/1 to DW5/153 tendered alongwith the affidavit in examination in chief at the time of cross-examination of the witness introducing those documents, but not in the manner and mode of moving an application. There is no provision in the Civil Procedure Code for de-exhibiting the document.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon a judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. v. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineries) & others, [2010(5) Law Herald (SC) 3566] : 2010(8) SCC 423, a judgment of Gauhati High Court in case Subhash Trading Co. & Ors. v. Amolok Chand Surana, 2011(16) R.C.R. (Civil) 162 and a judgment of this Court in case Darshan Singh and others v. Gulzar Singh and others - CR No.3566 of 2012 decided on 11.11.2014, contends that since the documents Ex.DW5/1 to Ex.DW5/153 were not annexed with the written statement by the respondents, therefore, the trial Court should not have allowed the respondents to produce the same alongwith affidavit of DW5 without prior permission. The aforesaid documents could not have been exhibited by the trial Court without their formal proof.

6. Having given considerable thoughts to the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, I find the instant revision petition as completely devoid of any merit for the reasons to follow:-

7. The provisions of Order 8 Rule 1-A and Order 13 Rules 1, 3, 4 and 6 read with Section 151 CPC are directory in nature and not mandatory. No litigant can be non-suited on account of not strictly following the aforesaid provision.

8. The facts and circumstances of Darshan Singh and others v. Gulzar Singh and others - CR No.3566 of 2012 decided on 11.11.2014 relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner are quite distinguishable from the facts of the present case inasmuch as in that case, the controversy between the parties revolved around a Will which was not produced at the time of filing of the plaint. However, in the said case, a decision of this Court dated 30.09.2014 in CR No.6812 of 2013 – Aggarwal Vidya Pracharni Sabha v. Municipal Corporation Faridabad and another, dealing with Order 8 Rule 1-A, and Ord

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2018 Supreme(P&H) 1922

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANABeforeHon’ble Mr. Justice Ramendra JainCR No.618 of 2018Dera Baba Bhauri Wala v.Gaay Sewa Samiti (Regd.) & Ors.{Decided on 01/02/2018}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ramendra Jain
CR No.618 of 2018
Dera Baba Bhauri Wala
v.
Gaay Sewa Samiti (Regd.) & Ors.
{Decided on 01/02/2018}