IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment establishes the importance of adhering to fundamental principles of judicial procedure and considering crucial factors before allowing the introduction of new documents.

JUDGMENT

1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with clause 6 of the High Court of Meghalaya (Jurisdiction over District Council Courts) Order, 2014 has been preferred against the Judgment dated 02.09.2020 passed by the learned Judge, District Council Court, Khasi Hills in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2017, upholding the order dated 05.12.2016 passed by the learned Trial Court in Title Suit No. 8 of 2009.

2. The brief facts are that the learned Trial Court by the order dated 05.12.2016, had allowed and admitted 20 photo copies of documents filed by the respondents/plaintiffs at the stage of framing of issues which the petitioner/defendant contends is contrary to Order 7 Rule 14 of the CPC. On appeal before the Court of the Judge, District Council Court, the same was upheld by Judgment dated 02.09.2020. The petitioner thereby being aggrieved, is before this Court, and has put a case that the said documents filed by the plaintiffs are neither part of the Plaint, nor any reference made to them in the pleadings and that the impugned order allowing the introduction of these documents has the effect of changing the entire course and nature of the Suit without even the Plaint being amended.

3. The short point that is to be decided in the instant revision is whether the Courts below were correct in allowing additional documents to be filed which are not part of the Plaint at the stage of framing of issues, notwithstanding the fact that before the District Council Courts, the CPC is not applied in letter, but in spirit and as such, in the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the learned Courts below were justified in not adhering to the provisions of Order 7 Rule 14 (3) of the CPC which has laid down as follows:-

'14. Production of document on which plaintiff sues or relies.-

(1) ...........

(2) ...........

(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. Mr. V.G.K. Kynta, learned Senior counsel assisted by Ms. C. Nongkhlaw, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the said documents sought to be introduced, were without the leave of the Court, nor with any amendment to the Plaint and pleadings, and are not even remotely mentioned in the Plaint in any manner. It is further submitted that the said documents are not the originals of the documents that have been filed along with the Plaint or written statement, as provided under Order 13 Rule 1 CPC. It is then contended by the learned Senior counsel that irrespective of the stage of the proceeding of a Suit, no document can be produced other than in the manner given under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC and that by the impugned orders, the Courts below have adopted a procedure unknown to law and though only the spirit of the CPC is applicable, the said orders have caused grave prejudice to the petitioners/defendants and has occasioned severe miscarriage of justice. He lastly submits that the spirit applied should be such, to ensure fairness and justice; and it is of paramount importance that these judicial institutions adopt a standard procedure which will not prejudice any party in the conduct of such proceedings. Learned Senior counsel on the point of submission of additional documents, has cited the case of Chakreshwari Construction Private Limited v. Manohar Lal reported in (2017) 5 SCC 212.

5. Mr. R.S. Myrthong, learned counsel for the respondents in reply submits that the documents had been filed prior to the stage of evidence, while the issues are being framed and as such no prejudice can be said to have been caused to warrant any interference by this Court. Learned counsel submits that Rule 47 of The United Khasi-Jaintia Hills Autonomous District (Administration of Justice) Rules, 1953 h