An application for production of documents under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC cannot be rejected solely on the ground of delay. The court must consider the relevancy of the documents and whether the case can be properly adjudicated without them.

Headnote:
ORDER 7 RULE 14 CPC - PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS - RELEVANCY
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a civil suit for permanent injunction and sought to produce documents relating to revenue proceedings under Order 7 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The trial court rejected the application on the ground that the documents could have been produced earlier and that the plaintiff was delaying the matter.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court allowed the petition and set aside the trial court's order. It held that Order 7 Rule 14 CPC does not provide that an application for production of documents can be rejected solely on the ground of delay. The court must consider the relevancy of the documents and whether the case can be properly adjudicated without them.
Issues: Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the plaintiff's application for production of documents under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC solely on the ground of delay.
Ratio Decidendi: Order 7 Rule 14 CPC does not provide that an application for production of documents can be rejected solely on the ground of delay. The court must consider the relevancy of the documents and whether the case can be properly adjudicated without them.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the petition and set aside the trial court's order. The plaintiff was directed to produce his witnesses on the next date, and if witnesses were not recorded, the right to produce witnesses or to record evidence would be closed by the court.

ORDER

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.

2. This miscellaneous petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the order dated 10.08.2023 (Annexure-P/3) passed by the IIn d Civil Judge Senior Division, Balaghat in a pending civil suit i.e. RCSA/121/2021.

3. In the pending civil suit filed for permanent injunction which was fixed for recording the evidence of plaintiff, the petitioner/plaintiff moved an application under Order 7 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'C.P.C.') for production of documents relating to revenue proceedings, in which statement of the defendants was recorded in a mutation proceeding, as such, those documents, according to the plaintiff, were material for proper adjudication of the case and as such, they wanted to bring them on record, but the trial Court rejected the application mainly on the ground that the documents could have been produced even on earlier occasion because case was fixed five times for recording the evidence of plaintiff and on every occasion, counsel for the plaintiff sought time to produce his evidence.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court without considering the fact as to whether those documents are material for proper adjudication of the case or not, rejected the application only on the ground that the documents could have been produced on earlier occasion and moving an application for production of documents is mere tactic of delaying the matter.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents relying upon the order passed by the trial Court submits that nothing wrong has been done by the Court in rejecting the application because the plaintiff did not want to record his statement, therefore, delaying the matter by moving an application under Order 7 Rule 14 of C.P.C. whereas it could have been done even on earlier occasion. As such, he has supported the order passed by the trial Court. He further submits that the application was moved with an intention to fill-up the lacuna in the statement of the plaintiff during his cross-examination because when question was asked that the documents relating the revenue proceedings are not produced, then only the application was moved by the plaintiff to bring those documents on record.

6. Considering the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record, especially the order passed by the trial Court, I am of the opinion that Order 7 Rule 14 of C.P.C. does not provide that an application could be rejected by the Court only on the ground of delay. There is no limitation provided for production of documents. Order 7 Rule of C.P.C. contains a provision that if any document which is relevant for proper adjudication of the case, is produced before the Court, then relevancy of said documents and stage of the case is to be seen and if it is found by the Court that without bringing the said documents on record, the case can be adjudicated properly, the Court cannot exercise the discretion and reject the request made by the parties for production of documents. But, without considering the said aspect, the application has been rejected merely on the ground that the documents could have been produced earlier, which is not proper because evidence has to be started and documents could have been taken on record as along with said application, documents have been produced by the plaintiff.

7. In view of the above, this petition is allowed setting-aside the impugned order dated 10.08.2023 passed by the trial Court. Accordingly, the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 14 of C.P.C. is hereby allowed. The plaintiff is directed to produce his witnesses on the next date and if witnesses are not recorded, then right to produce witnesses or to record evidence shall be closed by the Court.

8. However, the defendants would be at liberty to r

Click Here to Read the rest of this document