NAVEEN PATHAK vs ASHOK NEGI
- Court
- Uttarakhand High Court
UKHC010153912026
2026:UHC:10112
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
WRIT PETITION No.2648 of 2026 (M/S)
(Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India)
Naveen Pathak & Another --Petitioners
Versus
Ashok Negi --Respondent
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. B. D. Pande, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Mr. Devang Dobhal, learned counsel for the respondent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon’ble Siddhartha Sah, J. (oral)
By means of the present writ petition under Article
227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have sought
the following reliefs:-
(i) Set-aside the judgment and order dated 27.07.2026
passed by learned First Additional District Judge,
Dehradun in Civil Revision No.182 of 2024, titled as
“Naveen Pathak & Anr. vs. Ashok Negi” and the order
dated 18.07.2024 passed by the learned Additional Civil
Judge-II (Junior Division), Dehradun in Original Suit
No.97 of 2020, titled as “Ashok Negi vs. Naveen Pathak &
Anr.”.
(ii) Allow the revision being Civil Revision No.182 of 2024
titled as “Naveen Pathak & Anr. vs. Ashok Negi” and be
pleased to dismiss the application paper no.69C2 filed by
1
UKHC010153912026
2026:UHC:10112
the plaintiff/respondent seeking to bring on record certain
documents.
2. The facts necessary for the adjudication of the
present writ petition, are as follows:
(i) The plaintiff/respondent instituted a suit for
prohibitory and mandatory injunctions against the
petitioners. The petitioners/defendants filed a
written statement as well as a counter-claim.
(ii) The matter accordingly proceeded, and the learned
trial court, on the basis of the pleadings of the
parties, framed issues on 14.12.2023.
(iii) The matter was fixed for 18.07.2024, when the
plaintiff filed an application (Paper No. 69C-2),
along with certain documents vide list (Paper No.
70C). The learned counsel for the
petitioners/defendants made the following
endorsement: “Sir, opposed, copy received, time
for objection.”
(iv) The learned trial court heard the learned counsel
for the parties and, vide order dated 18.07.2024,
allowed the application (Paper No. 69C-2), to take
on record the documents filed vide list (Paper No.
2
UKHC010153912026
2026:UHC:10112
70C), and directed that the said documents be
taken on record.
3. Aggrieved against the order dated 18.07.2024, the
petitioners/defendants filed a revision, which was dismissed
by the First Additional District Judge, Dehradun vide
judgment and order dated 27.07.2026.
4. Assailing the impugned aforesaid orders, learned
counsel for the petitioners/defendants has drawn the
attention of the Court to provisions of Order VII, Rule 14 of
CPC and Order XIII, Rule 1 of CPC, which are extracted
hereunder for ready reference:-
Order 7 Rule 14. Production of document on which
plaintiff sues or relies
Documents relied on in plaint
1[14. Production of document on which plaintiff sues or
relies.— (1) Where a plaintiff sues upon a document or
relies upon document in his possession or power in
support of his claim, he shall enter such documents in a
list, and shall produce it in court when the plaint is
presented by him and shall, at the same time deliver the
document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the plaint.
(2) Where any such document is not in the possession or
power of the plaintiff, he shall, wherever possible, state
in whose possession or power it is.
2[(3) A document which ought to be produced in Court
by the plaintiff when the plaint is presented, or to be
entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint
but is not produced or entered accordingly, shall not,
without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence
on his behalf at the hearing of the suit.
(4) Nothing in this rule shall apply to document
produced for the cross-examination of the plaintiff's
3
UKHC010153912026
2026:UHC:10112
witnesses, or, handed over to a witness merely to
refresh his memory.]
Order 13 Rule 1. Original documents to be
produced at or before the settlement of issues
ORDER XIII
Production, Impounding and Return of Documents
1[1. Original documents to be produced at or before the
settlement of issues.— (1) The parties or their pleader
shall produce on or before the settlement of issues, all
the documentary evidence in original where the copies
thereof have been filed along with plaint or written
statement.
(2) The Court shall receive the documents so produced:
Provided that they are accompanied by an accurate list
thereof prepared in such form as the High Court directs.
(3) Nothing in sub-rule (1) shall apply to documents—
(a) produced for the cross-examination of the witnesses
of the other party; or
(b) handed over to a witness merely to refresh his
memory.]
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants
would submit that Order VII Rule 14 of the CPC envisages
that it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to file the documents
on which the plaintiff sues or relies at the time of institution
of the suit.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants
would further submit that, as per the provisions of Order XIII
Rule 1 of the CPC, the original documents are required to be
produced at or before the settlement of issues.
4
UKHC010153912026
2026:UHC:10112
He would further submit that the CPC does not
provide for filing any documents thereafter. In the backdrop
of the aforesaid provisions of Order VII Rule 14 and Order XIII
Rule 1 of the CPC, learned counsel for the
petitioners/defendants would submit that the learned trial
court erred in allowing the application (Paper No. 69C-2) and
permitting the plaintiff/respondent to bring the documents on
record.
7. He would fairly submit that although the court has
the discretion to accept documents on record, an unfettered
exercise of such discretion would give rise to an unending
process.
8. It is further the case of the petitioners/defendants
that, as per the admission of the plaintiff/respondent himself,
the learned trial court had orally permitted him to place
certain photographs on record. However, taking advantage of
the said permission, the plaintiff/respondent has placed
umpteen documents on record. Learned counsel would thus
submit that the plaintiff/respondent has acted beyond the
scope of the permission granted by the learned trial court. He
would, therefore, submit that the impugned orders are dehors
the provisions of the CPC and cannot be sustained. Since the
courts below have committed an illegality, the impugned
orders deserve to be quashed.
5
UKHC010153912026
2026:UHC:10112
9. Learned counsel for the defendants/petitioners
would further submit that he has no objection to the extent
that the documents sought to be brought on record are
photographs; however, he vehemently opposes the production
of any documents other than the photographs.
10. Per contra, learned counsel for the
plaintiff/respondent would submit that the documents
sought to be brought on record by way of the application
(Paper No. 69C-2) were necessary for the just and effective
adjudication of the case. He would further submit that
bringing the said documents on record would not alter the
nature of the case. He would thus submit that the impugned
orders are fully justified and in accordance with law and do
not warrant any interference by this Court.
11. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties
and upon perusal of the records, it is evident that Order VII
Rule 14 of the CPC envisages that the plaintiff/respondent is
required to produce the documents at the time of institution
of the suit and Order XIII Rule 1 of the CPC also provides that
the parties may produce the documents at or before the
settlement of issues. However, learned counsel for the
petitioners/defendants could not point out any provision of
the CPC which prohibits a party from bringing any document
on record after the settlement of issues.
6
UKHC010153912026
2026:UHC:10112
12. When the query was made to the learned counsel
for the parties as to what was the stage of the trial, learned
counsel for the parties would submit that the trial was at the
stage post framing of issues. However, the
plaintiff/respondent was yet to file the affidavit of
examination-in-chief. It was at this stage that the aforesaid
application (Paper No. 69C-2) was filed along with the list of
documents and the documents sought to be brought on
record.
13. Faced with such an eventuality, what falls for
determination before this Court is whether either of the
parties can be permitted to place on record documents, which
are necessary for the just and effective adjudication of the
case, after the settlement of issues. Although the provisions of
Order XIV Rule 1 and Order XIII Rule 1 of the CPC provide for
the filing of documents at or before the settlement of issues,
whether the Court can permit the filing of documents beyond
that stage is the moot question that arises for consideration
in the present case.
14. Although there is no specific provision extending
the time prescribed under Order XIII Rule 1 of the CPC, it is
well settled that procedure is a handmaiden of justice.
Procedural and technical hurdles should not be allowed to
come in the way of the Court in the dispensation of
substantial justice. Where a procedural violation does not
7
UKHC010153912026
2026:UHC:10112
cause serious prejudice to the opposite party, the settled
position of law is that the Court must lean in favour of
substantial justice rather than allowing procedural or
technical violations to defeat the same.
15. A similar matter arose before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Sugandhi (Dead) by Legal Representatives
and Another vs. P. Rajkumar, represented by his Power Agent
Imam Oli, reported in (2020) 10 SCC 706. In that case, the
documents had not been filed along with the written
statement, and the application seeking permission to bring
them on record was rejected. The revision preferred against
the said order was also dismissed by the High Court.
However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while considering the
provisions of Order VIII Rule 1A of the CPC, observed that
procedure is a handmaiden of justice and that procedural and
technical hurdles should not be allowed to come in the way of
the Court while dispensing substantial justice. Taking a
liberal view, the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the
application for production of documents under Order VIII
Rule 1A of the CPC. Paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the said
judgment are extracted hereunder for ready reference:-
“7. Sub-rule (1) mandates the defendant to produce the
documents in his possession before the court and file the same
along with his written statement. He must list out the documents
which are in his possession or power as well as those which are
not. In case the defendant does not file any document or copy
8
UKHC010153912026
2026:UHC:10112
thereof along with his written statement, such a document shall
not be allowed to be received in evidence on behalf of the
defendant at the hearing of the suit. However, this will not apply
to a document produced for cross-examination of the plaintiff's
witnesses or handed over to a witness merely to refresh his
memory. Sub-rule (3) states that a document which is not
produced at the time of filing of the written statement, shall not
be received in evidence except with the leave of the court. Rule
1(1) of Order 13 CPC again makes it mandatory for the parties to
produce their original documents before settlement of issues.
8. Sub-rule (3), as quoted above, provides a second opportunity to
the defendant to produce the documents which ought to have
been produced in the court along with the written statement, with
the leave of the court. The discretion conferred upon the court to
grant such leave is to be exercised judiciously. While there is no
straitjacket formula, this leave can be granted by the court on a
good cause being shown by the defendant.
9. It is often said that procedure is the handmaid of justice.
Procedural and technical hurdles shall not be allowed to come in
the way of the court while doing substantial justice. If the
procedural violation does not seriously cause prejudice to the
adversary party, courts must lean towards doing substantial
justice rather than relying upon procedural and technical
violation. We should not forget the fact that litigation is nothing
but a journey towards truth which is the foundation of justice and
the court is required to take appropriate steps to thrash out the
underlying truth in every dispute. Therefore, the court should
take a lenient view when an application is made for production of
the documents under sub-rule (3).
10. Coming to the present case, the defendants have filed an
application assigning cogent reasons for not producing the
documents along with the written statement. They have stated
9
UKHC010153912026
2026:UHC:10112
that these documents were missing and were only traced at a
later stage. It cannot be disputed that these documents are
necessary for arriving at a just decision in the suit. We are of the
view that the courts below ought to have granted leave to produce
these documents.
11. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, the appeal succeeds and
it is accordingly allowed. The orders impugned herein are set
aside. The application (IA No. 551 of 2018 in OS No. 257 of 2014)
filed by the appellant-defendants before the Principal Sub-Judge,
Pudukottai, is accordingly allowed. Parties to bear their own
costs.”
16. Since procedure is a handmaiden of justice and
Sub-Rule (3) of Order VII Rule 14 CPC is couched in similar
language as Sub-Rule (3) of Order VIII Rule 1-A CPC, the
Court, in appropriate cases, can permit the parties to produce
documents on record for the just and effective adjudication of
the case. In the present case, the plaintiff/respondent
admitted that the learned trial court had orally permitted him
to place certain documents on record. To that extent, the
defendants/petitioners had no objection. Their only objection
was that the plaintiff/respondent had gone beyond the scope
of the oral permission granted by the learned trial court and
had placed certain additional documents on record, which
were beyond the scope of even the said oral permission.
17. In the present case, the procedural violation does
not entail any further consequence. Moreover, the production
of the said documents would not cause any serious prejudice
10
UKHC010153912026
2026:UHC:10112
to the rights of the defendants/petitioners, as it would always
be open to them to rebut the documentary evidence by
producing documentary evidence in their defense. Such
rebuttal evidence may also be brought on record by the
defendants/petitioners, in accordance with law. In view of the
aforesaid, and keeping in mind the settled principle that
procedure is a handmaiden of justice as laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sugandhi (supra)
wherein in similar circumstances documents were permitted
to be taken on record, this Court does not find any illegality
or perversity in the impugned orders warranting interference.
Accordingly, no ground for interference with the impugned
orders is made out.
18. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court does
not find any merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of
the defendants/petitioners. Accordingly, the present writ
petition deserves to be dismissed.
19. The present writ petition is, thus, dismissed with
the aforesaid observations.
(Siddhartha Sah, J.)
03.11.2026
Akash
Digitally signed by AKASH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=dae2472c001d56469ea76fc0caa68f48ef
73518c148d140566ab1e26f9cbe61d,
postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand, serialNumber=27096a1625377537a487dee49224
c891823fc6a0334628b21e516047ed4f22f7,
cn=AKASH
Date: 2026.11.04 10:30:18 +05'30'
AKASH
11