Uttarakhand HC Upholds Order Taking Plaintiff’s Documents On Record After Issues, As Defendants Can Rebut Them Before Evidence Begins

The respondent-plaintiff brought a suit for prohibitory and mandatory injunctions against the petitioners, who filed a written statement and counterclaim.

After issues were framed, but before the plaintiff filed his affidavit of examination-in-chief, he applied to place additional documents on record.

The trial court allowed the application; the petitioners’ revision was dismissed by the First Additional District Judge, Dehradun.

The petitioners challenged both orders under Article 227, principally contending that documents could not be produced after settlement of issues and that some documents exceeded the trial court’s oral permission to file photographs.

Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC provides that a document which the plaintiff ought to have produced or listed with the plaint may not be received in evidence without the court’s leave.

Order XIII Rule 1 CPC provides for production of original documents at or before settlement of issues, but the court found no provision prohibiting their production thereafter.

In Sugandhi (Dead) by Legal Representatives v. P. Rajkumar, (2020) 10 SCC 706, the Supreme Court held, in the context of Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) CPC, that leave to produce documents should be exercised judicially and that courts should favour substantial justice where procedural non-compliance does not seriously prejudice the opposing party.

The High Court applied that principle to Order VII Rule 14(3), holding that courts may permit later production in appropriate cases.

Although the documents were produced after issues had been framed, the plaintiff had not yet filed his evidence-in-chief, and the CPC contained no absolute bar on later production.

Applying the principle in Sugandhi, the Court considered that the documents could assist the just and effective adjudication of the case and that their production would not cause serious prejudice: the petitioners could challenge or rebut the documentary evidence, including by producing evidence in accordance with law.

The petitioners’ objection that some documents exceeded the scope of the oral permission did not establish illegality or perversity warranting supervisory interference.

It dismissed the writ petition, leaving the petitioners at liberty to rebut the documentary evidence in accordance with law.