Maya Devi vs Sandeep Khamnotra and Others

The petitioner is one of the defendants in an injunction suit pending before learned SubJudge, Jammu. She wanted to produce one memorandum

of partitiondeed executed by her and respondents 2 to 4 dated 8.3.1976 at belated stage. The trial court has, however, refused to receive the

document by order dated 18.3.1993. Hence this revision.

Mr. J.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial court has committed patent illegality by refusing to receive the document

which is a registered document and genuineness of which is not in dispute. The document stood referred to in the written statement and was crucial

for the just decision of the case. He argued that the petitioner has failed to produce the document in time due to in advertence and this was a good

cause within the meaning of Order 13 rule 2 C.PROCEDURE CODE to warrant the receipt of the document by the trial court. He pleaded that

the court below had proceeded on a wrong assumption by rejecting the petitioner's prayer on the ground that the plaintiff would be prejudiced in

the process as his evidence had been closed. According to him, no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff because the statement of the

petitionerdefendant had yet to be recorded. He sought support from AIR 1984 Delhi 439 and AIR 1984 Patna 223.

Mr. Sandeep Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.l justified the order impugned and submitted that the petitioner had failed to show any

good cause to produce the document in question at a belated stage. He claimed that enormous prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff if the

document was allowed to be received in evidence.

I have heared learned counsel for the parties and examined the judgment impugned and also the record.

It all turns on the true interpretation of and the intent and purpose of Order 13 rule 2 C.PROCEDURE CODE the relevant provisions of which

are extracted thus:

Documentary evidence to be produced at or before the settlement of issues:

(1) The parties or their pleader shall produce at or before the settlement of 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 the Court, and all documents which the Court has

ordered to be produced.

(2) The court shall receive the documents produced: Provided that they are accompanied by an accurate list thereof prepared in such form as the

High Court directs.

Effect of nonproduction of documents:(1) No documentary evidence in the possession or power of any party which should have been produced

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 nonproduction thereof; and the Court receiving any such evidence shall record the reasons

for so doing.

A plain reading of the provision shows that the rule is that the parties and their pleaders shall produce all documentary evidence of every

description in their possession or power, on which they intend to rely and all documents which the court has ordered them to produce, at or before

the settlement of issues. Rule 2, however, provides an exception to this and lays down that no documentary evidence in the possession or power of

any party, which should have been but has not been produced in accordance with 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 nonproduction thereof and the Court receiving any such evidence

shall record reasons for so doing. Thus, effect of Rule 2 is that even if the party did not produce any documentary evidence, in its possession or

power, at or before the settlement of issues, it can do so, at a latter stage provided ""good cause is shown"" to the satisfaction of the Court for its

nonproduction and where the Court feels satisfied and orders to receive such document in evidence, it has to record reasons in support.

A crucial requirement that a party has to satisfy for production of a document at a later stage, is to show a 'good cause' for its nonproduction at

the relevant stage. In other words, the party has not to show a mere 'cause' but something more than that and the cause shown must be 'good'. It

cannot be disputed that there is a difference of degree between a cause' and 'a good cause'. Anything can be advanced as a 'cause' but to make

out a 'good cause' implies an additional obligation to show the plausibility of soundness of cause. Whether a party shows such 'good cause', it is for

the court concerned to feel satisfied about it. To make it very clear it is the satisfaction of the trial court, and the trial court alone, that matters and

the High Court has no scope to interfere where such satisfaction proceeds on a valid reasoning. It would be a different matter if the satisfaction is

assumed perversely, arbitrarily, unreasonably or irrationally.

Viewed thus, a party pleading that he did not produce the document at the relevant stage because of ""inadvertance"" cannot be said to be a

'good cause' within the meaning of Order 13 Rule 2 by any stretch of imagination. Even if it be assumed that the mere use of word ""inadvertance

can furnish a cause, the type and kind of such ""inadvertance"" requires to be further explained to bring it upto the standard of ""good cause"".

Otherwise it would be stretching the word ""inadvertance"" too far to say that its mere use furnishes a ""good cause' in a situation. And if any such

reasoning was to be accepted, the word ""inadvertance"" would become a passport for any default needing no further explanation for such default

committed by the parties. That certainly is not the intend and spirit of the expression ""good cause"" used in Order 13 Rule 2 C.P.C.

I have gone through the decisions reported in AIR 1984 Delhi 439 and AIR 1984 Patna 223, cited by Mr. J.P. Singh at the bar and find that

reliance on the same is misplaced. The first judgment pertains to the recall of witness and in this the Court was interpreting the provisions of Order

13 Rule 17. In the Patna judgment, the nonproduction of the document was explained in so many words and it was stated that the same was

misplaced. Since the refusal to receive the document in this case was based on the sole ground that the plaintiff's case stood closed and the

petitioner's explanation was overlooked, the High Court interfered to upset the order. The judgments in both the cases have no bearing in the

instant case and are distinguishable both on facts and law.

Keeping in regard that it was primarily for the trial court to assume satisfaction whether or not to receive document in evidence at a belated

stage, I examined the judgment impugned and found it so well reasoned that I do not want to add anything in the matter. To dwell further in the

matter would be only at the cost of repetition. All I can say is that the trial court has rightly proceeded in the matter and has correctly refused to

accept the document in evidence. It is immaterial for the present [SIC] whether or not any prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff in case the

document was allowed to be brought on record. It is also irrelevant in the present controversy whether the genuineness of the document was

beyond doubt or in dispute. What is important is whether the petitioner had shown a 'good cause' before the trial court for nonproduction of the

document at the relevant stage. I am afraid she has failed to do so and there could not have been a better appreciation of that then the one

contained in the impugned order.

In the premises I find no merit in this revision which is dismissed along with CM.P. No.376 of 1993.

Record of the trial court be returned forthwith.