Nanjunda Setty @ N.S. Tallam And Ors. vs Tallam Subbaraya Setty And Sons And Ors. on 15 July, 2003

[Cites 2, Cited by 9]

Karnataka High Court

Nanjunda Setty @ N.S. Tallam And Ors. vs Tallam Subbaraya Setty And Sons And Ors. on 15 July, 2003

Equivalent citations: ILR2004KAR924

ORDER 7 RULE 14 , ORDER 8 RULE 1A, ORDER 18 , RULE 4 -- Power of Court to receive documents which are subsequent to filing of the plaint/ written statement -- Good cause whether to be shown for delay in production of the said documents -- HELD -- There is no prohibition in the code of the Court to receive documents at the subsequent stage of the hearing. In exercise of the said power if the Court either receives the documents at a subsequent stage of the hearing or refuses to receive the documents the Court cannot be found fault with. It is not sufficient cause for delay in filing the documents which is to be considered by the Court, but it is the relevancy of the said documents which is the criteria, which the Court has to consider either for receiving or rejecting the documents.

Held:

At the same time, Courts cannot lose sight of the object behind these Amendments. Merely because the Court has the power to receive in evidence the documents produced at subsequent stage of the hearing the documents should not be received as a matter of course. If these provisions are interpreted in that manner it would negate the intention of the Parliament in bringing about these amendments. Production of documents at the time and stage in the proceedings as stipulated under the aforesaid provisions should be the rule. Receiving documents at the subsequent stage of the hearing should only be an exception. The only consideration which should weigh with the Court while receiving any documents subsequent to the stage stipulated as aforesaid should be the relevancy of the said documents
to the matter in issue and for doing justice between the
parties.

(B) CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 (AMENDMENT ACTS OF 46/99 ) (AMENDMENT ACT OF 22/2002) --ORDER 7 RULE 14, ORDER 8 RULE 1A -- ORDER 18 RULE 4 CATEGORY 1 DOCUMENTS -- Documents upon which plaintiff sues document upon which the defendant bases his defence; Category 2 Documents --Documents in possession or power of the plaintiff/ defendant in support of his claim/defence on which they rely on;

The documents belonging to category (1) and (2), if they are not produced along with the pleadings shall not be received in evidence without the leave of the Court at the hearing of the suit.

(C) CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908( AMENDMENT ACT NO. 46/1999 AND AMENDMENT ACT NO. 22/ 2002) -- ORDER 7 RULE 14 ORDER 8 RULE 1A, ORDER 18 RULE 4 -- CATEGORY (3) DOCUMENTS -- The original of documents mentioned in category 1 & 2 -- HELD -- Should be produced on or before the settlement of issues.

(D) CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 (AMENDMENT ACT NO. 46/1999 AND AMENDMENT ACT 22 /2002) -- ORDER 7 RULE 14, ORDER 8 RULE 1-A, ORDER 18 RULE 4 -- CATEGORY 4 DOCUMENTS --Documents on which the parties rely on and which are not in their possession or power. CATEGORY 5 DOCUMENTS -- The documents on which the parties rely on incidentally but not to support their claim or defence and documents to disprove the claim or defence of the opposite party. CATEGORY (6) DOCUMENTS --The documents which come into existence after the pleadings are filed into Court. HELD -- Documents in categories 4, 5 & 6 could be filed along with the affidavit.

(E) CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 (AMENDMENT ACT 46/1999 AND AMENDMENT ACT 22/2002) --Legal position of, if the production of documents in all categories not followed. HELD -- If documents belonging to category (1) and (2) are not produced along with the pleadings and documents at category No. (3) are not produced at on before settlement of issues and documents mentioned in categories (4) & (5) are not produced along with affidavit, the party loses a right to produce those documents at the subsequent stage of hearing of the suit. But that does not mean that the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the same if it is of the opinion that the said documents are relevant for the purpose of deciding the case in controversy between the parties and doing justice to the parties in the case.

(F) CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 (AMENDMENT ACT. 46/99 AND AMENDMENT ACT 22/2002) --ORDER 7 RULE 14, ORDER 8 RULE 1A -- Non production of documents along with the pleadings --Laches on the part of the party or his pleader HELD --As the procedure is only a hand made of justice these, procedural requirement should not in any way defeat the cause of justice and there should not be sufferings because of laches on the part of the party or the pleader in not producing the document along with the pleadings.

The Court has been conferred with the power to receive the documents which are produced subsequent to the filing of the pleadings only. If, the said documents are relevant and material for the purpose of the case, i.e., in rendering justice in the case between the parties. Therefore, the object is a good case should not suffer because of the laches on the part of the party or his pleader in not producing the document along with the pleadings. As the procedure is only a hand made of justice, these procedural requirement should not in any way defeat the cause of justice. If the Court feels that the document which ought to have been produced and not produced and now sought to be produced is relevant material in deciding the lis between the parties, then it has a power to receive the said documents though it is tendered at a belated stage and no cause need to be shown by the parties for not producing earlier and the Court is not under any obligation to record its reasons for receiving the said documents at the belated stage.

(G) CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 (AMENDMENT ACT. 46/1999 AND AMENDMENT ACT 22/2002) --ORDER 7 RULE 14(3) , ORDER 8, RULE 1-A (3) --"Hearing of the suit" -- meaning of -- HELD -- The expression "hearing" used to describe whatever takes place before a Court closes the judicial functions at any stage of the proceedings subsequent to its inception. It refers to all the stages of the trial of the suit, namely the setting of issues, taking of evidence and hearing of arguments or other proceedings pending final adjudication of the suit. It may not refer to matters connected with the disposal of the interlocutory proceedings in the course of the suit. But it includes all proceedings which lead to the disposal or decision of the suit as such.

W.P. dismissed.

ORDER

N. Kumar, J.

1. Petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No. 686/97 on the file of City Civil Judge, Court Hall No. 7, Bangalore. The plaintiffs filed the above suit for the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. The respondents herein are defendants in the said suit. They have contested the claim of the plaintiffs. Issues were framed. Plaintiffs have adduced evidence and closed their side. On behalf of the defendants, one witness was examined as DW-1. Thereafter, affidavit of second witness for the defendants has been filed by way of examination in chief. Along with the affidavit in the examination in chief, an application is filed under Section 151 of CPC requesting the Court to permit the defendants to produce some documents which they wanted to mark in the course of evidence of DW-2. The said application was opposed by the plaintiffs. Learned Trial Judge after considering the rival contentions has allowed the said application for production of documents. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner have preferred this Writ Petition.

2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners contents, as is seen from the order the Court below has recorded a categorical finding that the explanation for the delay in production of the documents appears to be not proper but still the court has proceeded to allow production of said documents and as such the impugned order is liable to be quashed. He further contends, legislature in its wisdom has omitted Order 13 Rule 2 CPC while amending the Civil Procedure Code in the year 1999 and 2002 and in its place Order 8 Rule 1A has been introduced making it mandatory for the defendants to produce all the documents on which they rely on along with the written statement and only in exceptional cases with the leave of the Court documents can be produced. When the Court below is not convinced about the reason given for delay for production, it could not have condoned the delay and granted leave to the defendants to produce documents merely because it has power to do so under Order 8 Rule 1A. Therefore, he submits the impugned order is liable to be quashed.

3. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents contend, if the documents are not produced along with the written statement, the defendants are precluded from producing the documents as a matter of right but the power of the court to receive such documents is not taken away. Proviso to Order 18 Rule 4 CPC provides for filing of documents along with affidavit and therefore the intention of the legislature in bringing out this amendment is not to prevent documents being produced after the stage of filing of written statement is over. Therefore, he submits that on harmonious construction of these amended provision court has the power to receive documents produced subsequent to the filing of the written statement and even in the absence of any good cause being shown for the delay in production if the Court is satisfied that the said documents are necessary for proper determination of the controversy between the parties, the Court could receive the same.

4. Therefore the points that arise for consideration are as under:

(1) Whether the Court has no power to receive documents which are filed subsequent to filing of the plaint/ written statement unless a good cause is shown for delay in production of the said documents.

(2) What is the law, after amendment by Central Act No. 46 of 1999 and No. 22 of 2002, in so far as production of document in civil proceedings.

5. In order to answer these points it is necessary to have a look at the relevant provisions in the Civil Procedure Code before amendment and subsequent to amendment.

6. The first provision which dealt with production of documents prior to amendment is contained in Order VII Rule 14.

"14. Production of document on which plaintiff sues:- (1) Where a plaintiff sues upon a document in his possession or power, he shall produce it in Court when the plaint is presented, and shall at the same time deliver the document or a copy thereof to be filed with the plaint.

(2) List of other documents. Where he relies on any other documents (whether in his possession or power or not) as evidence in support of his claim, he shall enter such documents in a list to be added or annexed to the plaint".

The next set of provisions which dealt with production of documents prior to amendment is Order XIII Rule 1 and 2.

1. Documentary evidence to be produced at or before the settlement of issues:- (1) The parties or their pleaders shall produce, at or before the settlement or issues, all the documentary evidence of every description in their possession or power, on which they intend to rely, and which has not already been filed in Court, and all documents which the Court has ordered to be produced.

(2) The Court shall receive the documents so produced.

Provided that they are accompanied by an accurate list thereof prepared in such form as the High Court directs.

2. Effect of non-production of documents:- (1) No documentary evidence in the possession or power of any party which should have been but has not been, produced in accordance with the requirements of Rule 1 shall be received at any subsequent stage of the proceedings unless good cause is shown to the satisfaction of the Court for the non-production thereof, and the Court receiving any such evidence shall record the reasons for so doing.

(2) Nothing in Sub-rule (1) shall apply to documents,

(a) Produced for the cross-examination of the witnesses of the other party, or

(b) handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.

By Central Act No. 46/1999 the Civil Procedure Code was amended in respect of the aforesaid provisions. After amendment Order VII Rule 14 was substituted as under:

"14. Production of document on which plaintiff sues or relies - (1) Where a plaintiff sues upon a document or relies upon document in his possession or power in support of his claim, he shall enter such documents in a list; and shall produce it in Court when the plaint is presented by him and shall, at the same time deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the plaint.

(2) Where any such document is not in the possession or power of the plaintiff, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose possession or power it is.

(3) Where a document or a copy thereof is not filed with the plaint under this rule, it shall not be allowed to be received in evidence on behalf of the plaintiff at the hearing of the suit.

(4) Nothing in this rule shall apply to document produced for the cross-examination of the plaintiff's witnesses, or handed over to a witness merely to refresh, his memory.

(Underlining by me).

Order VII Rule 15 was completely omitted and in Order VII Rule 18 in Sub-rule (1) the words "without leave of the Court" was omitted. Order VIII Rule 1A was inserted. It reads as under:

1-A: Duty of defendant to produce documents upon which relief is claimed or relied upon by him -

(1) Where the defendant bases his defence upon a document or relies upon any document in his possession or power, in support of his defence or claim for set off or counter claim, he shall enter such document in a list, and shall produce it in Court when the written statement is presented by him and shall, at the same time, deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the written statement.

(2) Where any such document is not in the possession or power of the defendant, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose possession or power it is.

(3) Where a document or a copy thereof is not filed with the written statement under this rule, it shall not be allowed to be received in evidence on behalf of the defendant at the hearing of the suit.

(4) Nothing in this rule shall apply to documents - (a) produced for the cross-examination of the plaintiff's witnesses, or (b) handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.

Order 13 Rule 1 and 2 were omitted and in its place the following rule was substituted:-

"Original documents to be produced at or before the settlement of issues - (1) The parties or their pleader shall produce on or before the settlement of issues, all the documentary evidence in original where the copies thereof have been filed along with plaint or written statement.

(2) The Court shall receive the documents so produced;

Provided that they are accompanied by an accurate list thereof prepared in such form as the High Court directs.

(3) Nothing in Sub-rule (1), shall apply to documents-

(a) produced for the cross-examination of the witnesses of the other party; or

(b) handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.

7. There was a stiff opposition to several amendments carried out in the Amendment Act including the aforesaid provisions. Therefore, taking note of such objections by Central Act 22/2002, the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by Act 1999 was further amended. After amendment, the position is this:-

In place of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 14 of Order VII, the following was substituted:-

"(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."

Sub-rule (3) of Rule 1A of Order VIII, the following was substituted:-

"(3) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the defendant under this rule, but, is not so produced shall not without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit."

The following Rule was substituted to Order 18 Rule -4:

"4. Recording of evidence (1) In every case, the examination in chief of a witness shall be on affidavit and copies thereof shall be supplied to the opposite party by the party who calls him for evidence:

Provided that where documents are filed and the parties rely upon the documents, the proof and admissibility of such documents which are filed alongwith affidavit shall be subject to the orders of the Court.

8. A reading of the aforesaid provisions makes it abundantly clear that originally the plaintiff was expected to produce to the Court along with the plaint the documents in his possession or power on which he sues and only in respect of other documents whether in his possession or not which supported his claim he shall enter such documents in a list to be added or annexed to the plaint. In respect of documents which ought to have been produced to the Court by the plaintiff when the plaint is presented or to be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint which is not produced or entered shall not without the leave of the Court be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit. Thereafter, the parties had an opportunity to produce at or before settlement of issues all the documents of every description in their power or possession on which they intended to rely and which has already not been filed in Court and all documents that the Court has ordered to be produced and if so produced shall be received by the Court. If documents are not produced as required under Order 13 Rule 1 CPC there was a prohibition on the power of the Court to receive documents at a subsequent stage of the proceedings unless good cause is shown to the satisfaction of the Court for the nonproduction thereof and the Court receiving such evidence would have to give reasons to be recorded in writing before receiving the said documents.

9. By Amendment Act 46/1999 Rule 15 was completely omitted and in Rule 18 Sub-rule (1) the words 'without the leave of the Court' was omitted. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 14 of Order VII categorically stated that where a document or a copy thereof is not filed with the plaint under this Rule, it shall not be allowed to be received in evidence on behalf of the plaintiff at the hearing of the suit. Coupled with this, the provision of Order 13 Rule 1 and 2 were omitted. Order VIII Rule 14 was inserted making it compulsory for the defendant to produce all documents on which he relies in support of his defence along with the written statement making it clear that if he fails to avail that opportunity, he loses the right to produce the documents at the subsequent stages of the proceedings. The resultant position was the provision for production of documents with the leave of the Court subsequent to the filing of the suit was taken away. Similarly production of documents as a matter of right at or before settlement of issues was taken away. Further, the provision for production of documents after framing of issues and at the hearing of the suit by showing sufficient cause for not producing the document earlier was also taken away. The defendants right to produce the documents on which he relies on was also taken away. Therefore, the intention was made clear that all the documents to be filed by the parties had to be filed along with the plaint or the written statement. If documents are not produced along with the pleadings the right to produce documents subsequent thereto and the power of the Court to receive such documents whatever may be the circumstances was completely done away with.

10. This drastic amendment which resulted in the right of the parties to produce documentary evidence which is the most substantial portion of the evidence in civil litigation was taken away and was the subject matter of agitation. Even after 56 years of Independence the fact remains that the country is unable to wipe out illiteracy among the people. Most of illiterate persons even to this day live in villages. Even among the literates legal illiteracy persists. Having regard to the hurdles the litigants have to cross before instituting a legal proceedings in a Court, having regard to their capacity, resources, legal illiteracy, inefficiency, the language problems, even to this day it is not possible to expect the litigant to place before the Court his entire case in a nutshell at one stage. Therefore, if he is prevented from producing before the Court the documentary evidence which would clinch the issues in the suit but which could not be produced along with the pleadings certainly there would be miscarriage of justice. Therefore, the law as amended by Act 46/1999 would have done more damage to the cause of justice than doing justice to the majority of the litigants. Therefore, the Parliament took note of this valid objections to the amended provisions and made an attempt to remedy the mischief in this regard. Accordingly, substantial amendments were carried out in the Amendment Act 22/ 2002. The damage done by deleting the words "without the leave of the Court" in Order VII Rule 18 prior to amendment was restored by introducing Sub-rule (3) to Order VII Rule 14 whereby it was made clear that a document which ought to have been produced before the 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. Consequently, Order 7 Rule 18 as amended by Clause (V) of Section 17 of Act 46 of 1999 was omitted. Similarly, Rule 1A of Order 8 as brought about by amendment under Act 46/1999 was also amended substituting Sub-rule(3) in place of Clause (2) of Rule 18 of the Code.

11. Therefore, keeping in mind the background and the circumstances leading to this amendment, a harmonious reading of several provisions after amendment is necessary keeping in mind the law prior to 1999 amendment, what the legislature intended by 1999 amendment and by 2002 amendment. Hence, the law after the amendment could be stated thus.

12. Where the plaintiff sues upon a document or where the defendant bases his defence upon a document and both of them rely upon documents in their possession or power in support of their claim or defence, they shall enter such document in the list and shall produce it in Court when the plaint/written statement is presented by them and shall at the same time deliver the document and a copy there of to be filed with the plaint or written statement. Where the said documents are not in their possession or power, they shall where ever possible state in their pleadings in whose possession or power it is. The documents which they ought to have produced in Court along with the plaint or written statement is not produced, then they shall not without the leave of Court be received in evidence on their behalf at the hearing of the suit. Therefore the leave of the Court is required only to the documents of the aforesaid description. It cannot be extended to other documents. However, this rule do not apply to the documents produced for the cross examination of their witnesses or handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.

13. At or before the settlement of the issues the parties or the pleader are given an opportunity to produce documentary evidence in original if copies thereof had been filed along with the plaint or written statement and if so produced the Court shall receive the documents provided they are accompanied by a accurate list thereof prepared in such a form as the High Court directs. Therefore, it gives an indication that along with the plaint or written statement, if original documents had not been produced, the originals shall be produced at or before the settlement of issues with a list and the Court shall receive the same.

14. After this stage is crossed when the parties reach the stage of adducing evidence, when examination in chief of witness is tendered by way of affidavit, an opportunity is given to the parties to file the documents on which they rely upon along with the affidavit. However, the proof and admissibility of such documents shall be subject to orders of the Court. Therefore, it becomes very clear that even after the stage of pleadings is over, the original documents which are not filed along with pleadings but a copy is filed, could be filed at or before settlement of issues. When examination in chief is tendered by way of an affidavit, along with the affidavit the documents on which the parties rely upon could be filed. Either to produce the original document at or before settlement of issues or to file documents along with the affidavit at the time of tendering examination in chief by way of affidavit the party is not expected to give any reasons or show sufficient cause for not producing the said documents along with the pleadings. Nor is he expected to file any application for production of the said documents. In other words, the requirement of showing a good cause for non production of the documents as contemplated under Order 13 Rule 2 of CPC prior to 1999 amendment has been completely done away with.

15. Similarly, the requirement of law that the Court has to record reasons for receiving the documents after the stipulated period is also completely given a go by. As a matter of right, the original documents, the copies of which are already produced along with the pleadings could be filed by the parties at or before settlement of issues. Similarly, as a matter of right, the parties could produce documents on which they rely upon in support of their respective cases as spoken to by them in their examination in chief would be filed along with the affidavit.

16. The amended provisions either at Order 7 Rule 14 or at Order 8 Rule 1-A, only speaks of documents on the basis on which the plaintiff has sued or the defendant has based his defence and both of them rely upon which are in their possession or power cannot be received in evidence at the hearing of the suit without the leave of the Court. Therefore, the documents which came to the possession of the parties after the pleadings are filed into the Court on which they rely on in support of their claim or defence could be produced along with the affidavit filed by way of examination in chief. Similarly, documents which are not in the nature of suit documents or documents on which the defence is not based could also be produced along with an affidavit. The said affidavit can only contain oral evidence. It cannot contain documentary evidence. It is in that context proviso is added making this position clear. Proviso states, provided that where documents are filed and parties rely upon the documents, proof and admissibility of such documents which are filed along with the affidavit shall be subject to orders of the Court. Therefore, it is clear that the aforesaid proviso provides for filing of documents along with affidavit which is certainly a stage subsequent to filing of pleadings. Said proviso does not provide for any leave of the Court being obtained for production of such documents or any cause being shown for delay in production of documents and not producing them along with pleadings. In other words, the documents which are in the nature of the suit documents or the documents on which the entire defence is based ought to be produced along with the respective pleadings. Similarly, the documents on which the parties rely upon and which are in their possession or power which supports the claim of the defence ought to be produced along with the pleadings. The documents which are not in the nature of suit documents could be produced along with the affidavit filed by way of examination in chief. Similarly, the documents on which the parties rely upon but which was not in their possession or power on the day the pleadings were filed, they also could be filed along with the affidavit by way of examination in chief. If the documents which are in the nature of a suit document or a document on which the defence is based and documents on which the parties rely upon which was in the possession and power of the parties and which was not filed along with the pleadings by entering the same in the list and annexed to the plaint or written statements are to be produced at the hearing of the suit, the leave of the Court is required for receiving the said document in evidence. Therefore, the legislature in its wisdom has dispensed with the earlier practice of showing sufficient or good cause for delay in production of the said document. What is now required is leave of the Court before the said document is received in evidence. Whereas, earlier, good cause was to be shown to the satisfaction of the Court for non-production thereof within the stipulated period. In other words, now what is to be shown to the Court before the said document is received in evidence is how that document is relevant for establishing the claim or defence. Only the Court on being satisfied by the relevancy of the document can grant the leave sought for. If the document sought to be produced is not material or relevant for the purpose of deciding the controversy between the parties, the Court would be justified in refusing to grant the leave. Therefore, the intention of the legislature is very clear. The Court has been conferred with the power to receive the documents which are produced subsequent to the filing of the pleadings only. If, the said documents are relevant and material for the purpose of the case, i.e., in rendering justice in the case between the parties. Therefore, the object is a good case should not suffer because of the laches on the part of the party or his pleader is not producing the document along with the pleadings. As the procedure is only a hand made of justice, these procedural requirement should not in any way defeat the cause of justice. If the Court feels that the document which ought to have been produced and not produced and now sought to be produced is relevant material in deciding the list between the parties, then it has a power to receive the said documents though it is tendered at a belated stage and no cause need to be shown by the parties for not producing earlier and the Court is not under any obligation to record its reasons for receiving the said documents at the belated stage.

17. The language employed in Sub-rule (3) of Rule 14 of Order 7 and Sub-rule3 of Rule 1-A of Order 8 also assumes significance. The words used in the said provisions are that if the documents are 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." Therefore, in order to appreciate this provision we have to see the meaning of the word "at the hearing of the suit". The word "hearing" has been the subject matter of interpretation in several decisions. The consensus arrived at in respect of the meaning to be attached to that word is now well settled. The expression "hearing" used to describe whatever takes place before a Court closes the judicial functions at any stage of the proceedings subsequent to its inception. It refers to all the stages of the Trial of the suit, namely the settling of issues, taking of evidence and hearing of arguments or other proceedings pending final adjudication of the suit. It may not refer to matters connected with the disposal of the interlocutory proceedings in the course of the suit. But it includes all proceedings which lead to the disposal or decision of the suit as such. Therefore, the phrase at the hearing of the suit" employed in the aforesaid provision makes the intention of the Legislature or Parliament very clear, ie., after the pleadings arc filed, before the judgment is pronounced at any stage of the proceedings the document could be produced with the leave of the Court. Therefore, the documents referred to at category (1) and (2) in para -19 could be produced at the hearing of the suit before the judgment is rendered in the suit with the leave of the Court.

18. The intention of the Legislature could be gathered from one more angle. Order 41 Rule 27 CPC which provides for production of additional evidence in the appellate Court has remained untouched by these amendments. Therefore, the effect is even after the judgment is over, in the appellate Court, it is open to the party to produce the document in support of his claim or defence. However, stringent conditions are imposed before such evidence is permitted to be produced. Once, those conditions prescribed are satisfied, the appellate Court has ample power to receive such documentary evidence. The only condition being that Court shall record the reasons for permitting such additional evidence. Therefore, the intention of the Parliament is clear. The only difference after the amendment would be, earlier, good cause was to be shown for non-production of the document. Whereas, what is to be shown after the amendment is not good cause for non-production of document, but the relevancy of the document for deciding the case. Once the Court comes to the conclusion that the document to be produced is relevant for the purpose of deciding the controversy between the parties and the Courts requires the said document to pronounce the judgment on merits, thereafter no fetters are placed on the power of Court to receive the documents. If documents could be received in evidence in an appeal, in the circumstances mentioned under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, the Trial Court has the ample power to receive such documents prior to passing of the decree. However, receiving the documents after the stage of evidence is only by way of exception and the rule is to produce the documents along with pleadings or along with the affidavit. Therefore, after the stage of filing of the affidavit by way of examination in chief is over, the party loses his right to file any document of any description.

19. Therefore, what follows from the aforesaid discussion is the documents on which the parties rely on in support of their case could be broadly classified as under:

1. Document upon the plaintiff sues/document upon which the defendant bases his defence;

2. Documents in possession or power of the plaintiff/defendant in support of his claim/defence on which they rely on;

3. The original of documents mentioned at (1) and (2) supra;

(4) Documents on which the parties rely on and which are not in their possession or power;

(5) The documents on which the parties rely on incidentally but not to support their claim or defence and documents to disprove the claim or defence of the opposite party.

(6) The documents which come into existence after the pleadings are filed into Court.

20. The documents belonging to category (1) and (2), if they are not produced along with the pleadings shall not be received in evidence without the leave of the Court at the hearing of the suit. Documents of category (3) shall be filed on or before settlement of issues. Documents (4), (5) and (6) could be filed along with the affidavit. Therefore, it is clear that if documents belonging to Category (1) and (2) are not produced along with the pleadings and documents at Category No. 3 are not produced at or before settlement of issues and documents mentioned in Categories (4) and (5) are not produced along with affidavit, the party loses a right to produce those documents at the subsequent stage of hearing of the suit. But that does not mean the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the same if it is of the opinion that the said documents are relevant for the purpose of deciding the case in controversy between the parties and doing justice to the parties in the case. Here it is to be noticed that the amendment brought about by the parliament by Act No. 46/99 mandatorily stipulating that if documents are not filed along with pleadings it shall not be allowed to be received in evidence on behalf of the parties at the hearing of the suit has been advisedly omitted in the Amendment Act 22/2002. Therefore, no fetters are placed on the power of the Court to receive the documents. As the law stands today there is no prohibition in the code for the Court to receive documents at the subsequent stage of the hearing. In exercise of the said power if the Court either receives the documents at a subsequent stage of the hearing or refuses to receive the documents the Court cannot be found fault with. It is not sufficient cause for delay in filing the documents which is to be considered by the Court, but it is relevancy of the said documents which is the criteria which the Court has to consider either for receiving or rejecting the documents. At the same time, Courts cannot lose sight of the object behind these amendments. Merely because the Court has the power to receive in evidence the documents produced at subsequent stage of the hearing the documents should not be received as a matter of course. If these provisions are interpreted in that manner it would negate the intention of the Parliament in bringing about these amendments. Production of documents at the time and stage in the proceedings as stipulated under the afore said provisions should be the rule. Receiving documents at the subsequent stage of the hearing should only be an exception. The only consideration which should weigh with the Court while receiving any documents subsequent to the stage stipulated as aforesaid should be the relevancy of the said documents to the matter in issue and for doing justice between the parties.

21. In the instant case, though Court below recorded a finding that the cause shown for production of documents is not satisfactory having regard to the nature of the documents produced the controversy between the parties and the stage at which said documents are produced the Court was of the opinion that those documents are necessary for proper determination of the controversy between the parties. The Court also took note of the fact, what the plaintiffs were complaining of was that no case is shown for delay in production but they had no serious objection to the documents as such. Under those circumstances in the facts and circumstance of the case if the Court was of the opinion that leave should be granted to the defendants to produce such documents, committed no illegality. In that view of the matter, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order which calls for interference. Accordingly, Writ Petition is dismissed.

Office is directed to circulate a copy of this order to all the subordinate Courts in the State of Karnataka.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court