Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sewa Singh vs M/S Ganpati Trading Co on 13 November, 2014
CR No.4514 of 2012 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR No.4514 of 2012.
Decided on:-November 13th, 2014.
Sewa Singh. .........Petitioner.
Versus
M/s Ganpati Trading Company. .........Respondent.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON.
*****
Argued by:- Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate
for the petitioner-defendant.
Mr. Harish Goyal, Advocate
for the respondent-plaintiff.
Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.
A suit for recovery filed by plaintiff M/s Ganpati Trading Company, Commission Agents, Samana, through its sole proprietor Surinder Kumar, respondent herein, is pending adjudication against defendant Sewa Singh, petitioner herein. Suit of the respondent-plaintiff is based on account books viz. Rokar Bahi, Khata and Form-J, entries which were maintained in the daily course of business. Since the respondent is also an income tax assessee, his accounts are also subject to scrutiny by the Income Tax Department.
2. Concedingly, the petitioner-defendant is an agriculturist and had YAG DUTT 2014.11.13 18:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR No.4514 of 2012 -2- been selling his agricultural produce through the respondent-plaintiff. Some dispute cropped up between them and the suit for recovery of Rs.11,30,969.50 Ps. i.e. Rs.8,50,359.50 Ps. as principal and Rs.2,80,610/- as interest was preferred giving details of accounts maintained by the respondent-plaintiff in the regular course of business. When the evidence was being led, the respondent-plaintiff could not lay hands on certain documents and thus could not produce the said documents though details thereof had been fully explained in the plaint.
3. During the course of leading of evidence, an application was moved by the respondent-plaintiff for grant of leave to place on record copies of the cash book and the Khata entries alongwith J-forms and Punjabi translation thereof. The said application was strongly contested. Notwithstanding tough contest made by the petitioner-defendant, the application was allowed vide impugned order dated 5.5.2012 passed by the lower court.
4. Claim of the petitioner-defendant in this petition is that since the documents were the very foundation of the case of the respondent- plaintiff, in terms of Order VII Rule 14 CPC those documents were to be placed as annexures with the plaint and could not have been allowed to be produced later. Support has been sought from Nepal Das and another Versus Aditi Deori and others 2012(6) RCR (Civil) 156 (Gauhati) wherein Referring to Order VII Rule 14, Order VII Rule 18, Order XIII Rule 1 as also Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, it was held that when documents are not presented with the plaint, those could not be produced after framing of issues but it was further clarified that under exceptional and special reasons explained by the erring party showing inability of filing such documents at an early stage, the same could be filed later.
YAG DUTT 2014.11.13 18:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR No.4514 of 2012 -3-5. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent-plaintiff has urged that the documents sought to be produced are beyond manipulation and photocopies thereof had already been filed with the plaint. It is also claimed that in the plaint, each and every document and entries thereof have been explained in detail leaving no scope for any uncertainty. Support has also been sought from Nachhattar Singh Versus M/s Darshan Kumar Rajiv Kumar Commission Agents 2012(3) PLR 377 (P&H); M/s Dabur (Nepal) Pvt. Limited Versus M/s Woodworth Trade Links Pvt. Limited 2010(4) AD (Delhi) 842 (Delhi) and Arjinder Singh Versus M/s Virk Brothers and another 2012(5) RCR (Civil) 208 (P&H). It is urged that merely because the document, photocopies whereof are already on record with the pleadings details whereof are also given with full explanation, cannot be denied to be relied upon by the erring party merely because the original of the documents are sought to be placed on record with some delay.
6. At this stage, it would be necessary to refer Order VII Rule 14, Order VIII Rule 1-A and Order XIII Rule 1 CPC, which are as under:
Order VII Rule 14 C.P.C.
"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, where possible, state in whose possession or power it is.
(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.YAG DUTT 2014.11.13 18:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR No.4514 of 2012 -4-
(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."
Order 8 Rule 1-A CPC "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) 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.
(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 CPC "1. 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 YAG DUTT 2014.11.13 18:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR No.4514 of 2012 -5- other party; or
(b) handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory."
7. Co-joint reading of the above provisions reveals that the parties are required to produce documents and other copies upon which they sue or rely upon alongwith their pleadings. It may, however, be noticed that if a document required to be produced in the court is not produced with the pleadings of the concerned party, then it may be produced at the time of hearing of course with the leave of the court.
8. Reading of Order XIII Rule 1 CPC leaves no doubt that if copies of the documents have already been placed on the file alongwith the pleadings by the parties, then original thereof may be produced on or before the settlement of issues. It is also relevant to note that Order XIII Rule 1 CPC does not restrict production of these documents for the cross-examination of the witnesses at later stage even.
9. Co-joint reading of sub-rule 2 of Rule 14 of Order VII and sub- rule 3 of Order VIII as also Rule 1-A of Order VIII CPC makes it clear that any document which though should have been produced alongwith the pleadings is not so produced, may be allowed by the court to be produced at any subsequent stage if sufficient reason is shown by the erring party for non-production of the same and alongwith its pleadings.
10. In the present case, the matter is very clear and certain. Rokar and Bahi Khata alongwith J-form and translation in Gurmukhi script, original of which are sought to be produced, and copies whereof are already available with the pleadings of the parties, could be filed at a later stage with the leave of the court. It may be mentioned specifically that admissibility or relevance of the documents is not the subject matter of these provisions. On this aspect, one has to go to Order XIII of Rule 3 CPC, which YAG DUTT 2014.11.13 18:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CR No.4514 of 2012 -6- reads as under:
"3. Rejection of irrelevant or inadmissible documents. - The Court may at any stage of the suit reject any document which it considers irrelevant or otherwise inadmissible, recording the grounds of such rejection."
11. Reading of this provision clearly specifies that if at a later stage, the court finds that additional document in the shape of evidence produced with the leave of the court, is not relevant or is inadmissible in evidence, then the court is empowered to reject such evidence in terms of Rule 3 of Order XIII CPC as has already been quoted earlier.
12. Keeping in view the totality of above facts and circumstances, the impugned order vide which application of the respondent-plaintiff for production of documents has been allowed, is well-written, fully explained and takes into account all the facts and circumstances of the case.
13. Sequelly, no ground is made out to interfere with the impugned order dated 5.5.2012 passed by the lower court and affirming the same, this petition being without any merit, is dismissed.
(Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon)
th
November 13 , 2014 Judge
'Yag Dutt'
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes YAG DUTT 2014.11.13 18:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document