Adverse Inference and Document Exclusion Orders Become Infructuous Upon Subsequent Admission of the Same Document as Evidence

The Petitioner (Plaintiff), residing in the UK, filed Original Suit No. 879 of 2023 through his power of attorney.

He moved an application under Order VII Rule 14(3) of the CPC to produce a sale deed (No. 8951 dated 15.09.2003) which was not filed with the plaint.

The trial court allowed the production subject to costs, but the Petitioner subsequently requested more time until his arrival in India in January 2026.

On 05.01.2026, the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), VIII, Ranchi rejected the extension, ordered that an adverse inference be drawn, and directed that the sale deed be excluded from evidence.

On 07.01.2026, the Petitioner produced the deed, and the court marked it as Exhibit 1.

The Petitioner’s subsequent application to recall the adverse inference order was rejected on 15.01.2026 on the grounds that the Civil Court lacked the power to review its own order.

The Petitioner then moved the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Whether the observation regarding drawing an adverse inference and the exclusion of the sale deed from evidence remained sustainable after the document was subsequently admitted and marked as an exhibit.

The Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Procedural provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), specifically Order VII Rule 14(3) regarding the production of documents not filed with the plaint, and Section 151 regarding the inherent powers of the court.

Principle of procedural redundancy: once a document is formally admitted into evidence and marked as an exhibit, prior interlocutory observations excluding said document or drawing adverse inferences against its non-production become legally irrelevant.

The High Court noted the sequence of events where, despite the trial court’s initial punitive order dated 05.01.2026, it had itself subsequently accepted the original sale deed on 07.01.2026 and marked it as Exhibit 1.

Both the Petitioner and the Opposite Parties conceded that the marking of the deed as an exhibit rendered the previous order’s observations regarding "adverse inference" and "exclusion" moot.

The Court reasoned that once the evidence is on the record as a marked exhibit, maintaining an earlier order that mandated its exclusion would be contradictory and redundant.

The High Court effectively found that the trial court's observation had become "irrelevant" in light of the changed evidentiary status of the document.

The High Court allowed the Civil Miscellaneous Petition and quashed the observations made in the order dated 05.01.2026 insofar as they related to drawing an adverse inference and the exclusion of Sale Deed No. 8951 from evidence.

The interim order dated 27.01.2026 was vacated, and the Registry was directed to intimate the lower court.