AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
J.V. Gupta, J.—The Plaintiff Petitioner has filed this revision petition against the order of the trial Court dated August 16, 1979, whereby it dismissed his application for permission to produce certain documents.
On March 19, 1978(sic) the Plaintiff Petitioner made an application u/s 151 of the CPC for permission to file certain documents (16(sic) in all including the photostate copies of the agreement of assignment dated August 8, 1977, and the deed of assignment dated August 30, 1978, entered into between the Plaintiff and M/s Mahal Pictures Pvt. Ltd , Defendant No. 3). It has been stated in the application that in the suit although issues were framed on February 27, 1929(sic), no information was given to the Plaintiff regarding the same and other orders till he came to know about the same from the opposing counsel, hence necessary steps could not be taken in time. However, this application was contested by the Defendant Respondent No. 2. The trial Court vide its order dated August 16, 1979, rejected the application as regards the permission to produce the agreement of assignment and the deed of assignment referred to above while the production of other documents was allowed. The trial Court has unnecessarily written very lengthy judgment while disposing of the said application. The reasons for dismissing the application qua the said documents are that the application does not disclose sufficient cause contemplated under Order 13 Rule 2 of the CPC and the possibility of the fabrication of the documents, as pointed out by the learned Counsel for the contesting Defendant, cannot be ruled out.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has contended that the trial Court has acted arbitrarily in the exercise of its jurisdiction and the grounds given by it are imaginary. It has been pointed out that the Plaintiff specifically mentioned these documents in para 4 of the plaint and Defendant No. 2 in the written statement filed by him has not denied the existence of these documents. The only plea taken by him in the written statement is that the agreement had no affect on his rights in any way. In preliminary objection No. 3, it has been stated that "the Plaintiff and the Defendants have no privity of contract. However if the Plaintiff claims that he steps into the shoes of Defendant No. 3, then he is neverthless bound by the terms and conditions of the contract entered into between the third Defendant and the second Defendant". In preliminary objection No. 10 it has been stated that "in law the alleged assignment is illegal and unlawful and the Defendant No. 3 could not enter into the alleged agreements dated August 8, 1977 and August 30, 1978, and also that there is no legal and valid assignment by the Defendant No. 3 in favour of the Plaintiff."
Thus according to the learned Counsel, it is apparent from the perusal of the pleadings, that Defendant No. 2 had at no stage specifically denied the execution of these documents. Moreover, the documents are not the basis of the suit, and therefore, it was not necessary to produce them along with the plaint as contemplated under Order 7 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure. These documents are required to prove the locus standi of the Plaintiff as he has stepped into the shoes of Defendant No. 3. As regards the good cause to be shown as contemplated by Order 13 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it has been contended that the genuineness of these documents could not be doubted as the same have already been relied upon in the plaint itself and Defendant No 2 has not denied their existence. It was further argued that the rules of procedure exist for furtherance of the cause of justice and not to hamper the same. Moreover, when certain other documents have been allowed by the Court, there was no reason to disallow these two documents particularly when delay is not the reason given by the trial Court.
On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Respondent has vehemently argued that it is a discretionary order and the trial Court has exercised its discretion after giving very cogent reasons and the same cannot be interfered with u/s 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In support, he has cited, Keshardeo Chamria Vs. Radha Kissen Chamria and Others, and The The Managing Director (MIG) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. and Another, Balanagar Vs. Ajit Prasad Tarway,
It has also been contended that no sufficient cause has been proved for producing these documents at that late stage. Even in the application filed by the Petitioner u/s 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, no good cause has been shown as contemplated under Order 13 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. According to the learned Counsel, the trial Court has rightly observed that the possibility of the fabrication of the documents cannot be ruled out. He particularly drew my attention to Order 13 Rule 1 (Punjab amendment) which is to the following effect:
The parties or their pleaders shall produce, at the first hearing of the suit, 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 Court, and all documents which the Court has ordered to be produced.
After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the trial Court has acted with material irregularity in the exercise of is jurisdiction and if this order is allowed to stand, it may cause great hardship to the Petitioner and it will occasion failure of justice. The trial Court has ignored the pleadings of the parties while deciding the matter. In view of the pleadings of the parties reproduced earlier, it could not be said that there was any possibility of the fabrication of the documents or these documents were not relied upon earlier. Moreover, the documents are not the basis of the suit as observed by the trial Court and are only required to prove the locus stand: of the Plaintiff and, therefore, the question of any possibility of any fabrication is nothing but imaginary. The trial Court itself has observed "there is no denying the fact that the Plaintiff in the plaint as well is in the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has reproduced some terms and conditions of these documents and the contesting Defendant may be in a position to show that any one of the two documents in question in whole or in part has been created or replaced by the Plaintiff in connivance with M/s Mahal Pictures Defendant No. 3 after the institution of the suit."
In view of these circumstances the trial Court has ignored the pleadings of the parties as well as relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. Order 7 Rule 14 of the CPC is not attracted in this case and has been wrongly made applicable. Order 13 Rule 2 provides for good cause to be shown for the late production of the documents of course, if the parties fail to produce the documents at the relevant time, the leave of the Court is necessary under Order 7 Rule 18 and the Court is required to give reasons for doing so under Order 13 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The words ''good cause is shown to the satisfaction of the Court for the non production thereof are quite relevant. There is no absolute bar provided under the rules for late production of documents. Rather both under Order 7 Rule 14 as well as under Order 13 Rule 2, the discretion has been given to the Court to grant necessary permission. Thus the Court is to exercise its discretion with a judicial mind taking into consideration the nature of the suit, the pleadings of the parties and the hardship it may cause to the party if the documents are not allowed to be produced at that late stage. Moreover, it is also well known in civil litigation that costs are the panacea for all ills which the Court should ordinarily resort to. If a party can be compensated by costs, ordinarily this course should be adopted. It will save unnecessary harasment to the party and also a chance of any remand in appeal etc. and at the same time will also further the cause of justice as it will provide due opportunity to the party concerned to prove its case at the trial stage. It is rare that the Court does not exercise its judicial discretion in favour of the party who wants to produce the documents at a late stage of course, no hard and fast rule can be laid down and it will depend on the facts of each case that how and when that judicial discretion is to exercised.
Thus keeping in view the nature of litigation and the totality of circumstances, particularly the pleadings of the parties, this petition is allowed and the order of the trial Court is set aside and the Petitioner is allowed to produce the said two documents on payment of Rs. 300/- as costs.