Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Since the suit is filed in the year 2013 and he filed his written statement in the year 2017, the last documents enumerated in the list is of 2015 showing that all the documents were in existence and available with him, before he filed the written statement then he was supposed to produce the same despite that he did not produce any.

13. The argument that all these procedural violations should be construed liberally and a lenient view has to be taken permitting production of the documents in support of the case of a party if it does not cause any prejudice to other side is inappropriate, as here it is not a case that petitioner - defendant No. 1 has missed out any documents to be produced at the time of filing written statement. He has deliberately not produced any documents, and therefore, there is no question of C/SCA/17745/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/09/2022 taking any lenient view, permitting production thereof now after plaintiff closes his evidence, more particularly, when all were in existence and in possession of petitioner before filing of the written statement. It is not the case that though some of the documents were produced along with the written statement, certain documents were missed out or misplaced at the time of filing of the written statement and the submission of the documents so as to permit the same in view of sub-rule (3) of rule 1A of Order VIII of "the Code". Even if a lenient view is to be taken, the party who is not deliberately producing any document at the time of filing written statement, and therefore, there is no question of producing original thereof before settlement of issues but when he attempts to produce the same, that too, after the plaintiff closes his evidence, it is for him to show that no prejudice will be caused to the plaintiff if the documents are permitted to be received in evidence. Petitioner - defendant No. 1 cannot be heard to say that for receiving the same in evidence, the other side has to show some prejudice so as to deny the production thereof.

15. However, in my view, second opportunity of producing documents under sub-rule (3) of rule 1A of Order VIII of "the Code" is for those, who have produced documents with written statement and for accountable reasons, either certain documents missed out or those documents were not traceable at the relevant time and found subsequently or came into existence after written statement with the list of documents is filed, as subsequent events and relevant for the fact of the case. For the person who had not produced any, at the time while written statement was filed, it may not be a second opportunity to produce the same. Once requirement for reasons for non-production is considered by the Court that clearly means that it is for few of the document and not for total non- compliance of the said sub-rule (1) of rule 1A of Order VIII of "the Code". But the second opportunity is certainly not for those who have, despite the existence and availability of all those documents with them, did not produce it along with the written statement by a separate list. That second opportunity is C/SCA/17745/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/09/2022 not as of right, genuinely for explainable reasons, few documents if left out to be produced, can be produced, that too, with the leave of the Court. The Court has to be satisfied with the reasons for non-production thereof, though in existence and available with the defendant at the relevant time, in absence of any cause or explanation for non-production thereof, in my opinion, it can never be permitted, that too, after plaintiff closed his evidence.

16. Second opportunity, as submitted, is not to cover up the total default or non-compliance at the first opportunity. Otherwise, nobody will file the same at the time when written statement is submitted and after closure of evidence by a plaintiff, the defendant may seek to produce the same to surprise the plaintiff after he has disclosed his case, which is tested even by a cross-examination by the defendant himself. Considering the requirement of seeking leave on good cause being shown, it may be a second opportunity for those who availed the first opportunity, that too, with the leave of the Court if certain documents are missed out and for other reasons as enumerated hereinabove.

(iv) As per submission of petitioner - defendant No. 1, there are no new developments found from those documents, which took place subsequent to the filing of his written statement or production of earlier documents.

18. The reliance placed on the decision in the case of Sugandhi (supra), there also the Supreme Court has in unequivocal terms, held that "while there is no straight-jacket formula, this leave can be granted by the Court on a good cause being shown by the defendant." In that case, as C/SCA/17745/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/09/2022 considered by the Supreme Court, defendants had filed an application assigning cogent reasons for not producing the documents along with the written statement. They also stated that these documents were missing and were only traced at a later stage. It is further held that it cannot be disputed that these documents are necessary for arriving at a just decision in the suit.