GAHC010051962026 2026:GAU-AS:3979 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : CRP(IO)/84/2026 HARMINDER PAL SINGH S/O SRI SWARN SINGH, R/O WARD NO. 9, NORTH LAKHIMPUR, P.O. AND P.S.- NORTH LAKHIMPUR, DIST- LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM-787001 VERSUS MANJIT SINGH S/O SRI SWARN SINGH, R/O WARD NO. 9, NORTH LAKHIMPUR, P.O. AND P.S.- NORTH LAKHIMPUR, DIST- LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM-787001 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S K SINGH, MR. P SUNDI Advocate for the Respondent : MR. D CHAKRABARTY, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI

ORDER

Date : 18.03.2026 Heard Mr. S K Singh, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. P Sundi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D Chakraborty, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. By way of the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner assails the impugned order dated 21.02.2026 passed in Title Suit No. 9/2023 (Sri Manjit Singh vs. Sri Harminder Pal Singh), whereby the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), North Lakhimpur, rejected the petitioner’s application under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) of the CPC seeking leave to bring additional documents on record.

3. The respondent, as plaintiff, instituted the aforesaid suit seeking declaration of half share in the schedule land, partition of profits, permanent injunction, and other consequential reliefs. The petitioner, upon entering appearance, filed his written statement asserting exclusive ownership over the suit land. It was specifically pleaded that the plaintiff’s name was incorporated in the sale deed only to fulfil the wishes of their ailing mother. The petitioner further asserted that he had developed the land, constructed a house, and established an authorised Maruti servicing center, which has been in operation since 2002 without obstruction.

4. In support of his defence, several documents were annexed to the written statement. During the course of cross-examination of PW-1, certain additional documents having material bearing on the controversy came to light. Upon tracing the said documents subsequently, the petitioner filed an application under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) of the CPC seeking leave to bring them on record. The Trial Court, however, rejected the said application, giving rise to the present petition.

5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the documents sought to be produced are directly connected with the defence already pleaded. It is contended that the same could not be filed earlier as they were misplaced and were traced only subsequently. It is further urged that the Trial Court rejected the application without assigning cogent reasons and failed to exercise its discretion in the manner mandated by law. Reliance is placed on Sugandhi (Dead) by LRs vs. P. Rajkumar reported in (2020) 10 SCC 706 and Levaku Pedda Reddamma vs. Gottumukkala Venkata Subbamma, reported in 2022 Livelaw (SC) 533, to contend that procedural rules ought not to defeat substantial justice.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner had full knowledge of the documents and failed to produce them along with the written statement as required under Order VIII Rule 1A(1) of the CPC. It is contended that permitting such documents at the stage of evidence would amount to altering the nature of the defence and would cause prejudice to the plaintiff.

7. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record.

8. Order VIII Rule 1A of the CPC casts an obligation upon the defendant to produce all documents relied upon at the time of filing the written statement. However, sub-rule (3) carves out an exception by empowering the Court to grant leave for production of such documents at a later stage. The provision, thus, incorporates a degree of flexibility, enabling the Court to advance the cause of justice where sufficient cause is shown.

9. The discretion under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) of