Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!

Scanned Judgements…!

Checking relevance for UNION OF INDIA VS IBRAHIM UDDIN...

UNION OF INDIA VS IBRAHIM UDDIN - 2012 4 Supreme 585 : Under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, an appellate court may allow additional evidence only if there is a ''''substantial cause'''' and the evidence is required to enable the court to pronounce a satisfactory judgment. A party who had ample opportunity to produce certain evidence in the lower court but failed to do so, cannot have it admitted in appeal. The mere fact that certain evidence is important is not in itself a sufficient ground for admitting that evidence in appeal. Inadvertence, inability to understand legal issues, wrong advice of a pleader, or negligence of a pleader does not constitute a ''''substantial cause'''' under the rule. Therefore, a plaintiff cannot produce a document on which he relies after a delay without providing justified reasons, especially when he had a prior opportunity to do so in the trial court.Checking relevance for Sugandhi (dead) by Lrs. VS P. Rajkumar rep. By His Power Agent Imam Oli...

Checking relevance for J. J. Merchant VS Shrinath Chaturvedi...

J. J. Merchant VS Shrinath Chaturvedi - 2002 5 Supreme 337 : Under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the Commission can insist on the production of all documents relied upon by the parties along with the complaint and the defence version. Specifically, Rule 14 of Order VII of the CPC mandates that where a plaintiff sues upon a document or relies upon a document in his possession or power, he must enter such documents in a list, produce them when the plaint is presented, and deliver the document and a copy to be filed with the plaint. Similarly, under Order VIII Rule 1-A of the CPC, the defendant is required to produce documents relied upon when submitting the written statement. The Commission has the power to enforce this mandatory requirement, and failure to comply may result in the document not being considered unless justified. This principle applies to ensure timely disposal of cases and prevent delay due to non-production of documents.Checking relevance for Mohammed Abdul Wahid VS Nilofer...

Mohammed Abdul Wahid VS Nilofer - 2023 8 Supreme 487 : Under Order VII Rule 14(3) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, 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. This means that a plaintiff cannot produce a document on which he relies after delay without obtaining the leave of the Court, and such leave is not granted unless justified. The High Court further emphasized that failure to produce documents as required may in some cases be tantamount to fraud, reinforcing the necessity of timely production and the requirement of justified reasons for delay.Checking relevance for Liverpool & London S. P. & I. Asson. LTD. VS M. V. Sea Success I...

Checking relevance for Bagai Construction Thr. Its Proprietor Lalit Bagai VS Gupta Building Material Store...

Bagai Construction Thr. Its Proprietor Lalit Bagai VS Gupta Building Material Store - 2013 0 Supreme(SC) 189 : Under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Order VII Rule 14 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, a plaintiff cannot be permitted to produce a document on which he relies after a significant delay, especially when the document has remained in his exclusive possession throughout the trial and was not produced at the time of filing the plaint. The court held that such belated production, even after conclusion of evidence, final arguments, and reservation of judgment, cannot be allowed to fill lacunae in pleadings and evidence, particularly when the plaintiff seeks to improve his case at the last stage to avoid a final adverse judgment. The court emphasized that documents which ought to be produced at the time of presenting the plaint shall not be received in evidence without the leave of the court, and such leave is not granted merely on the basis of Section 151 CPC if the delay is unjustified.Checking relevance for Dinesh Hingar S/o Bhanwarlal VS Kishanlal S/o Raghunath Ji Kumawat...

Checking relevance for Bhavesh Nareshchandra Amin VS Dilipbhai Bhaktiprasad Doshi...

Checking relevance for Silchar Municipal Board VS Gopendu Choudhury S/o Late Jnanendra Choudhury...

Checking relevance for B. S. Krishnan VS Peevees Exim Company Pvt. Ltd. , Kerala...

B. S. Krishnan VS Peevees Exim Company Pvt. Ltd. , Kerala - 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 1612 : Under Order VII Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, a plaintiff cannot produce a document on which he relies after a delay without obtaining the leave of the court, and such leave can only be granted if the plaintiff files an application with an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay. The court emphasized that the word ''''shall'''' in the rule is mandatory, meaning the plaintiff must seek permission and provide justified reasons for not filing the document at the time of presenting the plaint. Without such justification and court permission, the document cannot be received in evidence.

• Plaintiff's Obligation to Produce Documents at Filing - When a plaintiff relies on a document in support of their claim, they must enter such documents in a list and produce them in court at the time of filing the plaint, along with a copy. If the document is not in their possession, they should state whose possession it is. This requirement is mandated by Order VII Rule 14 of the CPC and reinforced by various judicial decisions. ["Gugilla Narayana vs The District Collector - Telangana"], ["PUPPALA PRABHAKAR Died vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER - Telangana"], ["Chennamuni Yadagiri Died vs The Assistant Commissioner - Telangana"], ["ZAMALPUR SURESH vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER - Telangana"], ["Puppala Prabhakar died vs THE ASSISTANT COMISSIONER - Telangana"], ["Chennamuni Yadagiri Died vs The Assistant Commissioner Endowments Department - Telangana"], ["ZAMALPUR SURESH vs THE ASSISTANT COMISSIONER - Telangana"], ["PPUPPALA PRABHKAR Died vs THE ASSISTANT COMISSIONER - Telangana"], ["PUPPALA PRABHAKAR Died vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER - Telangana"], ["RAJENDRAN vs JAMAL MOHAMMED FIZAL - Madras"]

• Delay in Producing Documents and Lack of Justified Reasons - Courts have held that if a plaintiff fails to produce the required documents at the time of filing without valid reasons, they cannot be permitted to produce such documents later. Leave to file documents after a delay is not automatic; the plaintiff must furnish valid reasons for the delay. Courts have rejected applications to produce documents filed at a late stage when no justified reasons are provided, viewing such attempts as tactics to protract proceedings. ["PUPPALA PRABHAKAR Died vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER - Telangana"], ["Chennamuni Yadagiri Died vs The Assistant Commissioner - Telangana"], ["ZAMALPUR SURESH vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER - Telangana"], ["Puppala Prabhakar died vs THE ASSISTANT COMISSIONER - Telangana"], ["Chennamuni Yadagiri Died vs The Assistant Commissioner Endowments Department - Telangana"], ["ZAMALPUR SURESH vs THE ASSISTANT COMISSIONER - Telangana"], ["PPUPPALA PRABHKAR Died vs THE ASSISTANT COMISSIONER - Telangana"], ["PUPPALA PRABHAKAR Died vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER - Telangana"], ["RAJENDRAN vs JAMAL MOHAMMED FIZAL - Madras"]

• Judicial View on Protracting Proceedings - Courts are wary of late applications to produce documents, especially when filed without valid reasons, as these are often seen as delaying tactics. Without justifiable cause, courts are unlikely to grant permission to produce documents after the initial filing stage. ["PUPPALA PRABHAKAR Died vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER - Telangana"], ["Chennamuni Yadagiri Died vs The Assistant Commissioner - Telangana"], ["ZAMALPUR SURESH vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER - Telangana"], ["Puppala Prabhakar died vs THE ASSISTANT COMISSIONER - Telangana"], ["Chennamuni Yadagiri Died vs The Assistant Commissioner Endowments Department - Telangana"], ["ZAMALPUR SURESH vs THE ASSISTANT COMISSIONER - Telangana"], ["PPUPPALA PRABHKAR Died vs THE ASSISTANT COMISSIONER - Telangana"], ["PUPPALA PRABHAKAR Died vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER - Telangana"]

• Legal Provisions and Judicial Precedents - The legal framework emphasizes timely compliance with document production requirements, and courts have consistently upheld strict adherence to procedural rules to prevent abuse and delay in civil proceedings. Exceptions are only made when valid, justified reasons are provided for the delay. Order VII Rule 14, relevant case law

Analysis and Conclusion:The sources collectively establish that a plaintiff is obliged to produce all documents relied upon at the time of filing the plaint. Failure to do so without valid reasons precludes subsequent late submission, and courts are generally reluctant to grant leave for late production, viewing such applications as delaying tactics. Valid justification is essential for any exception, and without it, the plaintiff cannot rely on delayed document production to support their case.