Ram Swaroop vs District Judge and others

Hon''ble Tarun Agarwala, J.—Heard Sri B.P. Nautiyal, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Jayvardhan Kandpal, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sudhir Kumar, the learned Brief Holder for the State/respondent nos. 1 & 2 and Sri Pramod Belwal, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 4.

The plaintiff filed a suit for cancellation of the sale deed executed in favour of the defendant. During the pendency of the suit, the defendant filed an application seeking permission to file an additional document on record, namely, the registered agreement to sell executed between the parties. At the time when the application was presented, the court below asked the defendant to explain the delay, which he did by moving another application contending that the document was misplaced and it was only recently found. The trial court rejected the application on the ground that the explanation given was improbable. The defendant, being aggrieved, filed a revision, which was also dismissed. Consequently, the present writ petition.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the Court finds that there is no provision for explaining the delay while filing a document to be brought on record belatedly. The provision which governs the rule is Order 8 Rule 1-A of the CPC which provides that the defendant shall file all the documents which he relies upon at the time of filing the written statement. However, Order 8 Rule 1-A (3) C.P.C. provides that where a document which ought to be produced in court by the defendant, but was not produced, shall not without the leave of the court be received as evidence on his behalf at the time of hearing of the suit.

In the light of the aforesaid provision, a document can only be brought on record with the leave of the court. The court is required to be satisfied that such document brought on record would not unnecessarily delay the proceedings. In the light of the aforesaid, especially when there is no resistance at the behest of the plaintiff before the trial court indicating delay in the disposal of the suit, the Court is of the opinion that the registered agreement to sell which was executed in favour of the defendant and which may have a bearing to the suit in question ought to have been brought on record on payment of cost.

In the light of the aforesaid, the impugned orders cannot be sustained and are quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The application of the defendant to bring on record the registered agreement to sell is allowed and the same shall be placed on record as evidence on payment of cost of Rs. 2,000/- (rupees two thousand), which shall be deposited before the trial court within three weeks from today. The amount so deposited can be withdrawn by the plaintiff.

Certified copy of this order shall be sent by the registry to the court below within two weeks from today for necessary information and action.