Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raghbir Singh vs Budhram And Ors on 12 December, 2014
Author: Rakesh Kumar Jain
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Jain
VINOD KUMAR
2014.12.15 17:28
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh
CR No.4174 of 2014 [1]
*****
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR No.4174 of 2014
Date of decision:12.12.2014
Raghbir Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Budhram and others ...Respondents
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain
Present: Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Arun Kumar Singal, Advocate,
for the respondents.
*****
Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.
The petitioner has filed suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing him forcibly from the house allegedly purchased by him vide sale deed dated 30.03.1976. The petitioner filed a photocopy of the sale deed dated 30.03.1976 with the plaint but did not file the original sale deed at that time. He himself appeared as PW1 and examined Karan Singh as PW3 and deposed that photocopy of the sale deed is of the original. His oral evidence was closed on 15.11.2013 after examination of PW2 and the case was fixed for 02.12.2013 for documentary evidence of the plaintiff subject to last opportunity.
On 02.12.2013, the plaintiff filed an application for exhibiting the copy of the sale deed by showing the original to the Court which was VINOD KUMAR 2014.12.15 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CR No.4174 of 2014 [2] ***** contested by the respondents by filing reply and vide the impugned order dated 22.05.2014, the learned Court below has dismissed the application on the ground that permission cannot be granted to the petitioner to exhibit the document when his oral evidence has already been closed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned trial Court has erred in dismissing the application though it had the jurisdiction to allow the petitioner to exhibit the photocopy of the sale deed without placing on record the original document after the original is produced for the inspection of the Court. In this regard, he has relied upon the following judgments:-
1. Aktiebolaget Volvo v. R. Venkatachalam and another, 2010(7) R.C.R. (Civil) 531;
2. Mahinder Singh v. A.C.I.G., Ballabgarh and others, 2010(4) PLR 708;
3. Uday Pratap v. Digamber Singh, 2013(101) ALR 320; and
4. Sehgal Puri Pvt. Ltd. v. The National Newsprint and Paper Mills Ltd., 2002(1) R.C.R. (Civil) 266.
Counsel for the respondents, however, has submitted that the original document cannot be produced after the oral evidence has been closed because it had to be produced in the statement of the witnesses of the plaintiff or in his own deposition.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and examining the available record, I am of the considered opinion that there is merit in the VINOD KUMAR 2014.12.15 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CR No.4174 of 2014 [3] ***** submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner.
Order 7 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides that the plaintiff has to file list of documents at the time of filing of the suit. Accordingly, the petitioner had attached photocopy of the sale deed with the plaint and stated in his examination that photocopy of the sale deed is the copy of the original document which is at his home and after his statement was recorded and oral evidence was concluded, he moved the application for exhibiting the photocopy available on record by producing the original document for the inspection of the Court.
In Aktiebolaget Volvo's case (supra), the Delhi High Court has observed that the Court can permit filing and exhibition of the photocopy of the document and exempt placing the original document on record as it can always ask the party to produce the original document for inspection of the Court.
In Mahinder Singh's case (supra), this Court had taken a view that the application can be allowed to produce on record original documents at a later stage if there is a sufficient cause shown by the applicant that the original could not be produced at the time of hearing due to oversight, mistakes and negligence of the counsel.
Similarly, in Uday Pratap's case (supra), the Allahabad High Court has observed that the Court has the power to permit the party to bring on record a document even after framing of issues.
In Sehgal Puri Pvt. Ltd.'s case (supra), the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court has observed that the sole consideration for directing VINOD KUMAR 2014.12.15 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CR No.4174 of 2014 [4] ***** or refusing direction for production of documents should be the relevancy of such documents as the delay in filing such application is not much material unless such direction is likely to cause prejudice or injustice to the party. It was also observed that if the photocopies of the documents are already on record and the evidence of the plaintiff is yet not complete and that of defendants is yet to start, the defendant will be able to counter any plea or evidence by cross-examination and leading his own evidence.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, the order passed by the learned Court below is found to be erroneous and hence, the present revision petition is hereby allowed and the impugned order is set aside.
December 12, 2014 Rakesh Kumar Jain vinod* Judge