Gauhati High Court
Pranoballav Roy vs Biswajit Dutta & 6 Ors on 25 October, 2016
Equivalent citations: AIR 2016 GAUHATI 177, (2017) 1 CIVILCOURTC 597 (2019) 1 GLR (NOC) 33, (2019) 1 GLR (NOC) 33
Author: N. Chaudhury
Bench: N. Chaudhury
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
PRINCIPAL SEAT AT GUWAHATI
(CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION)
CRP No.338 of 2014
Pranaballav Roy .... ... ... Petitioner
-Versus-
Biswajit Dutta & 6 others ... ... Opp. Parties.
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. CHAUDHURY
For the petitioner : Mr. B. K. Purkayastha, Advocate.
For the Opp. Parties : Mr. D. Chakraborty, Advocate.
Date of hearing : 25.10.2016.
Date of Judgment : 25.10.2016.
JUDGMENT & ORDER (Oral)
1.Heard Mr. B. K. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the opposite parties.
2. By filing this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the order dated 05.12.2013 passed by learned Munsiff No.1, Cachar at Silchar in Title Suit No.59/2009 thereby rejecting the prayer of the plaintiff for accepting documents submitted along with the examination-in-chief of the PW 1. CRP No.338/2014 Page 1 of 4
3. It is the case of the plaintiff that at the time of presentation of plaint the photocopy of all the documents were produced and so the defendants had due notice as to which documents were being exhibited by the plaintiff. However, at the time of settlement of issues the original documents were not produced. The plaintiff at the time of filing the examination-in-chief of the plaintiff as PW 1 annexed the original of the documents and sought to get the same exhibited. According to the plaintiff, since the photocopies were submitted earlier, there has been substantial compliance of the provision of law and there is no difficulty in accepting the documents in question.
4. Per contra, Mr. D. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the opposite parties, submits that the plaintiff was dutybound under Order VII Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure either to obtain leave of the Court or to produce the document in original in appropriate time.
5. Having considered the arguments put forward by the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned order it appears that the learned Munsiff considered the provision of Order VII Rule 14 to be a mandatory procedure and accordingly took a view that the plaintiff could not be permitted to produce the documents at that stage because of non compliance of Order VII Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Mr. B. K. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, has placed on record a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kapil Kumar Sharma vs. Lalit CRP No.338/2014 Page 2 of 4 Kumar Sharma and another, reported in (2013) 14 SCC 612. In that case the Hon'ble Supreme Court took the view that cross-examination of the witness was yet to commence and so there was no reason for debarring a party from filing additional document in support of his claim. There is no doubt that procedural law is the handmaid of justice and it cannot take place of the substantive law. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff had furnished the photocopy of the documents at the threshold and so the defendants had due notice of the documents. Apart from that, even if a document is not produced by the plaintiff at appropriate time and the Court is of the view that the document is necessary for proper adjudication of the matter in dispute, in that event it becomes the duty of the Court under Section 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure to ask the parties to produce the document so as to enable the Court to arrive at a right decision. The provisions of Section 30 of the Civil Procedure Code has time and again been highlighted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various cases and urged that the trial Courts in the country must take recourse to Section 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure. If the provision of Order VII Rule 14 is viewed in the light of Section 30 of the Civil Procedure Code it appears that even in the absence of a prayer from either of the parties the Court is at liberty to call for a document. The crucial question is whether the document is necessary for proper adjudication of the matter in dispute. It is the case of the plaintiff that the documents are relevant and indispensable for the purpose of proving his case and there is no denial to that effect CRP No.338/2014 Page 3 of 4 from the side of the defendants. Merely because plaintiff did not file a formal application for craving leave, therefore, cannot be a ground to deprive the plaintiff from relying on a document, more particularly when it is not the view of the learned court that the document is not relevant for the purpose of proper adjudication of the matter in dispute.
6. Considering the entirety of the circumstances including the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes vs. Erasmo Jack de Sequeria, reported in (2012) 5 SCC 370 and in Kapil Kumar Sharma (supra), I feel inclined to allow this application. The learned trial Court shall give opportunity to the plaintiff to exhibit the documents annexed to the examination-in- chief provided photocopies of them were really submitted by the plaintiff at the time of presentation of the plaint, as claimed by him. The admissibility of the document and/or their evidentiary value shall be considered by the Court at the appropriate time.
7. The revision petition stands allowed. Interim order, if any, stands automatically vacated.
JUDGE T U Choudhury CRP No.338/2014 Page 4 of 4