AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J
Both these civil miscellaneous petitions arise out of order passed in Title Suit No.65 of 2007 by the learned Trial Court. The petitioners are plaintiffs and the opposite parties are the defendants and since both the civil miscellaneous petitions arise out of the same case, therefore, they are being heard together and will be disposed of by the common order.
C.M.P. No.1085 of 2025
C.M.P. No.1085 of 2025 is preferred by the plaintiffs for quashing of the order dated 07.10.2025 by which the petition to mark certain documents available on record as exhibit under Section 74 of the Evidence Act has been rejected.
It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners that all these documents are more than 30 years old and there is presumption of due execution under Section 90 of the Evidence Act. It is further submitted that some of the documents were certified copies of the original Register II which was also filed and marked as exhibit. Petition dated 07.10.2025 was filed under Section 74 of the Evidence Act. P.W. 5 has produced that documents from his custody as testified by him in Para 16 and 17 of his deposition.
It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the defendants that these documents were filed at the belated stage when the case was posted for argument.
Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides, this Court is of the view that the learned trial Court erred in admitting the documents into evidence on the ground that they were not formally proved by the witness. Mode of proof of a document is provided under Part II of the Evidence Act and mode of proof depends upon the nature of document. If it is a private document executed within 30 years then law insist formal proof of it in terms of Section 47 or 45 of the Evidence Act. However, where document is more than 30 years old, there is rebuttable presumption of its due execution under Section 90 of the Evidence Act and a formal proof of such document cannot be insisted upon. The said document on being produced from bona fide custody, is to be marked as exhibit.
So far public document is concerned, the mode of proof is provided under Section 79 of the Evidence Act that it can be proved by the certified copy of it.
The question of mode of proof arises only if the document is relevant and it was either filed at the time of filing of plaint or written statement. In the event, where it was not filed along with plaint or written statement, the leave of the Court is sought under VII Rule 14 of the CPC or under Order VIII Rule 1(A) sub Rule 3 of the CPC.
So far admissibility of a document is concerned, the objection can be raised at any stage even after it has been marked as exhibit. However, on the mode of proof, if the objection is not raised at the time when it is marked into exhibit, the same cannot be raised later on.
The Apex Court held in Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat & Another, (2001) 3 SCC 1 :
“14. When so recast, the practice which can be a better substitute is this: Whenever an objection is raised during evidence-taking stage regarding the admissibility of any material or item of oral evidence the trial court can make a note of such objection and mark the objected document tentatively as an exhibit in the case (or record the objected part of the oral evidence) subject to such objections to be decided at the last stage in the final judgment. If the court finds at the final stage that the objection so raised is sustainable the Judge or Magistrate can keep such evidence excluded from consideration. In our view there is no illegality in adopting such a course. (However, we make it clear that if the objection relates to deficiency of stamp duty of a document the court has to decide the objection before proceeding further. For all other objections the procedure suggested above can be followed.”
Here, so far as the objection raised is mainly on the ground of mode of delay and therefore, the impugned order is set aside and C.M.P. No.1085 of 2025 is allowed. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of. Learned trial Court to mark these documents into evidence as exhibit. Defendants will be at liberty to raise issue of their relevancy at the stage of final argument.
C.M.P. No.886 of 2025
C.M.P. No.886 of 2025 is filed for quashing the order dated 18.07.2025 whereby and whereunder the learned trial Court has rejected the petition filed by the plaintiff under Order VII Rule 14 of the CPC seeking leave to admitting into evidence the following documents filed on behalf of the plaintiffs: -
I. Certified copy of registered deed of indenture vide deed No. 2848 of 1944.
II. Certified copy of register-II in the name of Lalu Mahto.
III.Certified copy of registered sale deed No. 2829 of the year 1957.
IV. Certified copy of registered sale deed No. 2827 of the year 2001.
V. Certified copy of registered sale deed No. 2826 of the year 2001.
VI. Certified copy of registered sale deed No. 1879 of the year 2001.
VII. Certified copy of registered sale deed No. 2952 of the year 2010.
VIII. Certified copy of registered sale deed No. 3420 of the year 1956.
on the ground that the plaintiffs was not vigilant and there was no due diligence on their part to file these documents after an inordinate delay.
It is submitted by the learned counsel that all these documents are certified copy of registered sale deeds and one is registered deed of indenture vide Deed No. 2848 of 1944. It is also contended that one certified copy of Register II in the name of Lalu Mahto has been filed and all these documents have been rejected by the cryptic order.
Learned counsel on behalf of the defendants has opposed the petition. It is submitted that at the fag end of the trial, the petition seeking leave of the Court has been filed under Order VII Rule 14 of the CPC. Reliance has been placed in M/S Bagai Construction Tr. Prop vs M/S Gupta Building Material Store, (2013) 14 SCC 01.
Order VII Rule 14(1) of the CPC mandates disclosure at the outset of the documents relied upon by the plaintiffs and Rule 14(2) requires the plaintiff to disclose the documents which is not in its possession or power at the time of the filing of the plaint. Law is settled that Rule 14(3) of the CPC which bars subsequent filing of a document, is procedural in nature and is not absolute. The Court detains discretion to permit production of a relevant document which will have a bearing on the fate of a case at a later stage as well. The leave may be allowed for omission whether bona fide or inadvertent and to admit into evidence relevant and material document for just adjudication. It has been held by the Apex Court in Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil vs. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 344 that the provision under Order VII Rule 14 of the CPC is not mandatory in nature.
I find force in the argument advanced on behalf of the defendants/opposite parties that when any document is beyond pleading, the same is not admissible. However, when a relevant document has been omitted to be filed along with the plaint, the same cannot be shut out on a technical ground taken under Order VII Rule 14 of the CPC. Order VII Rule 14 of the CPC not applicable where the document produced to rebut the plea raised by the defendants. These documents are necessary for proper adjudication.
Instant suit is filed for declaring right, title and interest by the plaintiffs. The land in question claims title on the basis of a chain of title from the original settlee of the land by the ex-landlord. In order to establish chain of title, the sale deeds are sought to be adduced into evidence. It is also contended that after the said settlement, petitioner is in peaceful possession and the suit is for title and permanent injunction. In order to establish the possession, the Register II sought to be adduced into evidence, is relevant.
Under the circumstance, the impugned order is set aside and C.M.P. No.886 of 2025 is allowed. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of. Defendants will have right of rebuttal, so far the documents filed on behalf of the plaintiffs are concerned.