Jatinder Kumar and Ors. Vs. Dewan Diwakar Rai and Ors. - (High Court of Jammu and Kashmir) (03 Aug 2018)

If document which ought to be produced in Court is not produced at that time, then it cannot be produced later on without leave of Court

MANU/JK/0580/2018

Property

The instant Civil Revision Petition filed is against the order passed by the Trial Court. Petitioners are the Defendants in the Suit filed by the Plaintiffs/Respondents, for a decree for mandatory injunction, directing the Defendants/Petitioners to remove the unauthorized construction raised on the suit property and the decree for possession of land. The Petitioners were able get a certified copy of the Report, submitted by the Deputy Commissioner, on the basis of the enquiry made by the then Assistant Commissioner with the Divisional Commissioner, Jammu regarding the land owned by Late Sh. Sain Dass, who is said to have died in 1987/1988.

An application for production of report as evidence, was filed on behalf of Petitioners to which Respondents filed objections. The Trial Court held that the documents should have been filed by the Petitioners under Order 8 Rule 1-A of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) while filing the written statements. They ought to have disclosed the fact that, the document was not in their possession. The authenticity and genuineness of document is doubtful. It is also stated in the instant civil revision petition that the Trial Court has outrightly rejected the document, which is a certified copy issued under Section 76 of the Evidence Act.

As per law, Defendant is required to produce all document/s upon which he relies at the time of filing of written statements in terms of Order VIII Rule 1-A of CPC; In terms of Rule 1-A(3) of Order VIII of CPC, if document which ought to be produced in Court is not produced at that time, then it cannot be produced later on without leave of Court. Order XIII Rule 1 of CPC warrants production of all original documents before issues are framed. Order XIII Rule 2 of CPC warrants production of documents at later stage with permission of Court, if good cause is shown. It has also to be shown that, he was not in possession or in knowledge of said document.

The document sought to be produced is public document obtained from revenue office. It has categorically mentioned that, this document was not in possession of Defendants. Law is clear that, admissibility or relevancy of document/s cannot be seen at the time of granting or refusing permission to produce document/s at belated stage. Court of first instance (Trial Court) is meant to do substantial justice after giving all reasonable opportunities to parties to produce evidence documentary or oral. The only purpose is that, technicalities should not come in way in providing substantial justice; procedural law is handmade justice and cannot be made an obstruction in the court's way to do justice. Whether document in question has bearing effect on the merit case, it can be seen when document is proved as per law. Mere taking on record, it does not mean that document has been proved and Court has relied on it.

The order of Court below is set aside. Present revision petition is allowed. The trial Court is directed to take the document on record; however, it is required to be proved as per law before relying upon it.

Tags : DOCUMENT PRODUCTION ADMISSIBILITY