Back
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Subhash Chand, J.
Budhuwa Oraon – Petitioner
versus
Ghura Oraon and Ors. – Respondents
W.P. (C) No.6367 of 2016
Decided on 26.6.2024
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order VIII Rule 1A(3) and Order XVIII Rule 17A – Production of documents – Rejection of petition for grant of leave to produce documents on sole ground that no reason has been assigned by defendant in regard to his failure to adduce the same at the time of filing written statement – If documentary evidence was not filed at the time of written statement despite due diligence, same may be taken on record at subsequent stage if those documents are necessary for adjudication of issues between parties – Even after the deletion of the provision under Order XVIII Rule 17A of the CPC, parties may adduce evidence at later stage of suit showing sufficient ground not producing them at the time of filing suit or at the time of filing written statement – Impugned order passed by trial court set aside – Application of defendant in regard to adducing documentary evidence which is sought to be produced by defendants hereby allowed – Plaintiff also given opportunity to adduce rebuttal evidence. (Paras 12 and 14)
Result: Writ Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT
Mr. Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner is present but no one appears on behalf of the respondent nos.1 and 2 despite valid service of notice to them.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. The present writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner against the order dated 21st September, 2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)-I, Gumla in Title Suit No.27 of 2008, whereby the petition filed by the petitioner under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) C.P.C. for grant of leave to produce the documents has been rejected.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the plaintiff-Ghura Oraon has filed a Title Suit No.27 of 2008 against Budhwa Oraon and Ors. for the reliefs that Ghardamadnama Deed no. 1096/93 dated 12th May, 1993, Original Mutation Case No.399 R 27/2002-03, Mutation Appeal No.7/2005-06 decided by L.R.D.C., Gumla and Mutation Revision No.17 of 2006 decided by D.C., Gumla all were sought to be declared null and void in regard to the property details of which is given in the schedule at the foot of the plaint of Khata Nos. 25, 122, 126 and 122 situated at village Mahuwatoli, P.S. Gumla, District-Gumla.
5. The defendant of the Title Suit No.22 of 2008, who is petitioner herein filed the written statement which is Annexure No.2 of the writ petition.
6. It is also further submitted that at the stage of evidence of plaintiff, the defendant moved an application to produce the certain documents which he could not file at the time of filing the written statement. The said application was rejected by the learned trial court vide order dated 21st September, 2016 while the evidence of the defendant has not yet commenced.
7. From the perusal of the impugned order dated 21st September, 2016, it is found that the learned trial court has rejected the application of the defendant to adduce the documents in evidence to prove his defence case on the sole ground that no reason has been assigned by this defendant in regard to his failure to adduce the same at the time of filing the written statement.
8. From the very perusal of the application which is Annexure No. 3 of this writ petition, it is found that the defendant has moved this application with these averments that the documents which he wants to adduce to prove his defence case were not in his knowledge at the time of filing the written statement. Accordingly, prayed to take the same on record.
9. Against this application on behalf of the plaintiff, the rejoinder was filed and copy of the same is Annexure No. 4 of this writ petition in which it is averred that the defendant has not mentioned under what provisions, he wants to produce these documents. The evidence of plaintiff has been closed and if the said documents are being taken on record, the plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss. The said documents are not relevant for the disposal of the suit.
10. It is admitted fact that in the suit, the evidence of plaintiff had been closed at the time of moving the application on behalf of the defendant to take certain documents on record and the evidence of the defendant has not commenced. So far as the reason for not producing these documents on behalf of the defendant at the time of filing the written statement is concerned, the same is shown by the defendant in his very application which has not been controverted on behalf of the plaintiff.
11. So far as the evidence of the plaintiff which has been concluded even after taking the documents on record, the plaintiff would have been given an opportunity to file the rebuttal evidence either documentary or oral as well, so that the rights of the plaintiff may not be prejudiced.
12. The learned trial court while rejecting the application of the plaintiff has not considered this legal position that if the documentary evidence was not filed at the time of written statement despite due diligence, the same may be taken on record at subsequent stage if those documents are necessar
Production of documents – Deletion of Order XVIII Rule 17-A of CPC does not disentitle production of evidence at a later stage.
The trial court must afford due opportunities to the parties to contest the case and cannot adopt an extremely harsh and hyper-technical approach in rejecting applications for taking documents on rec....
A defendant may produce documents at a later stage in civil proceedings if a bona fide explanation for the delay is provided, and no surprise is caused to the opposing party.
The court upheld the trial Court's dismissal of applications to introduce documents due to lack of valid grounds for delay, affirming the importance of timely evidence submission under procedural rul....
Court emphasized the importance of timely evidence submission in civil proceedings, stating that late applications require valid reasons, and upheld the trial court's decisions as free from jurisdict....
Documents must be relevant to the case and cannot be introduced at a belated stage without sufficient cause, as established in the context of civil procedure.
The second opportunity to produce documents under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) is for those who have produced documents with the written statement and have accountable reasons for not producing certain docu....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
