Back
2026 Supreme(All) 1544
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
Km. Mona Shukla and others - Petitioners
Versus
Gyanendra Katiyar - Respondent
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6369 of 2026
Decided On : 15-09-2026
For the Petitioner: Anil Kumar
For the Respondent: Shyam Narayan Verma, U.s. Verma
Under Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC, courts should exercise judicial discretion to allow late production of documents if the omission was bona fide, the document is relevant to an existing plea, and prejudice to the opposite party can be mitigated by procedural safeguards, regardless of the stage of arguments.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VII Rule 14(3) read with Section 151 - Production of documents at later stage - Leave of the Court - Discretion is to be exercised judicially based on a three-fold test: (i) whether omission to file the document earlier was bona fide; (ii) whether the document is relevant and necessary for effective adjudication; and (iii) whether permitting production at a later stage would occasion serious prejudice or irreparable injustice to the opposite party (Paras 26-27) - Procedural law is a means to advance the cause of justice and not to defeat substantive justice on account of procedural lapse (Para 28) - Mere fact that proceedings have reached the stage of final arguments is a significant consideration but not an absolute bar to the exercise of discretion (Para 29) - Documents supporting an existing plea stand on a different footing from those seeking to introduce a new factual foundation (Para 30).
(B) Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC - Factors for exercise of discretion - Include whether the document was in possession or knowledge of the party, subsequent availability, relevance to an issue already arising, stage of proceedings, and the nature of prejudice to the opposite party (Para 30).
(C) Fair Adjudication - Directions for expeditious disposal of a suit do not dispense with the requirement of fair adjudication; expedition and procedural fairness are to be harmonized rather than treated as mutually exclusive (Para 39).
Facts of the case:
The petitioners-plaintiffs filed a suit for eviction, recovery of rent, and damages. During the pendency of the suit, the plaint was amended to assert that the construction of the disputed premises took place after a certain date, rendering a specific rent control act inapplicable. After the evidence of both parties was concluded and the matter reached the stage of final arguments, the petitioners sought permission to produce a first tax assessment document and a sanctioned plan, claiming these were obtained subsequently from municipal authorities and were material for establishing the date of construction. The trial court rejected the application, citing the conclusion of evidence, the advanced stage of the proceedings, and existing directions for expeditious disposal.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioners provided a bona fide explanation for the delayed production of the document as it was obtained subsequently from a public authority. Since the document was intended to support an existing plea regarding the date of construction and not to introduce a new plea, and since any prejudice to the respondents could be mitigated by granting them an opportunity to contest its admissibility or recall witnesses, the trial court's rejection was erroneous.
Issues: Whether the trial court was justified in declining permission under Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC primarily on the ground that evidence had concluded and the suit was at the stage of arguments, despite the document being relevant to a pleaded fact and obtained subsequently.
Ratio Decidendi: The discretion under Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC is not mechanical. While the stage of proceedings is a relevant factor, it cannot convert the discretion into an absolute prohibition if the omission was bona fide and the document is necessary for effective adjudication. Where prejudice can be addressed via procedural safeguards, such as recalling witnesses for cross-examination, the document should be received to ensure a fair trial and a decision on merits.
Result: Petition allowed. The impugned order is set aside, and the application for production of documents is allowed subject to proof and admissibility.
JUDGMENT :
YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Shyam Narayan Verma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs assailing the order dated 02.04.2026 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 18, Kanpur Nagar in S.C.C. Civil Suit No. 46 of 2019 (Mona v. Gyanendra), whereby Application Paper No. 158-C filed by the petitioners under Order VII Rule 14(3) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the “CPC”), seeking permission to bring certain documents on record, has been rejected.
3. The aforesaid suit was instituted by the petitioners-plaintiffs seeking eviction of the respondents-defendants from the disputed premises for recovery of rent and damages. The suit was initially instituted as a civil suit and was subsequently proceeded with as a suit before the Small Causes Court. During the pendency of the proceedings, the plaint was amended pursuant to the order dated 21.08.2023, whereby paragraphs 2-A and 4-A were incorporated therein. In the amended plaint, the petitioners asserted, inter alia, that the disputed construction had been raised after 26.04.1985 and, consequently, the provisions of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 were not applicable to the premises in question.
4. The evidence of the petitioners-plaintiffs was concluded on 03.07.2025, whereas the evidence of the respondents-defendants was concluded on 20.01.2026. Thereafter, the suit was fixed for arguments. The case of the petitioners is that, during the pendency of the proceedings, they had made efforts to obtain from the Municipal Corporation, Kanpur, the first tax assessment relating to the disputed premises. According to the petitioners, the said document was ultimately obtained on 13.02.2026 pursuant to a complaint made by them through the Government portal.
5. Thereafter, the petitioners moved Application Paper No. 158-C seeking permission to bring on record, principally, the first tax assessment document issued by the Municipal Corporation, Kanpur, along with a copy of the complaint made for obtaining the same and a copy of the sanctioned plan. The petitioners pleaded that the first assessment document was material for establishing the date of construction of the disputed premises and, consequently, for determining the applicability of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. It was further pleaded that the document could not have been produced earlier as it was not available with the petitioners and had been obtained only on 13.02.2026.
6. The application was opposed by the respondents. It was contended that the application had been filed after conclusion of the evidence and at the stage of arguments only with a view to delay the disposal of the suit. It was further contended that some of the documents sought to be brought on record, including the map, were already available on the record, whereas the other documents were photocopies and were not admissible in evidence. The respondents also relied upon the fact that the evidence of both sides had already concluded and that the suit had reached the stage of final arguments.
7. It was also brought to the notice of the learned court below that directions had been issued by the High Court for expeditious disposal of the suit. In S.C.C. Revision No. 84 of 2025, by order dated 01.08.2025, the Court directed that S.C.C. Suit No. 46 of 2019 be decided within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of the said order. Earlier, by order dated 02.05.2024 passed in Article 227 Petition No. 5500 of 2024, the Court had also directed expeditious disposal of the suit within the period stipulated therein.
8. While considering the application, the learned court below noticed that the proceedings had been pending for arguments since 05.02.2026. It
