High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Smt. Nisha Garg & Others v. Jitendra Kumar & Others - MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. 3 of 2005  RD-AH 16823 (25 September 2006)
Civil Misc. Application No.3 of 2005
Smt. Nisha Garg and others...................................................Petitioners
Jitendra Kumar and others..................................................Respondents
Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala, J.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner is the plaintiff and filed a suit for a permanent injunction. An application 112-Ga was filed by the petitioner before the trial court for summoning the original documents from the office of the Assistant Commissioner, Income Tax, Agra which were seized during the Income Tax raid. This application was rejected by the trial court. The revision was also rejected. Consequently, the writ petition.
The court below rejected the application on the ground that the original document should have been filed at the time when the plaint was filed. The revisional court rejected the revision on the ground that there was an order of the High Court for the expeditious disposal of the suit. In my view, the trial court as well as the revisional court fell in error in rejecting the application. Order 13, Rule 1 of the C.P.C. reads as under:-
"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 witness of the other party; or
(b) handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.
A perusal of the aforesaid provision indicates that the documentary evidence should be filed on or before the settlement of the issues.
Order 7 Rule 14(3) of the C.P.C. reads as under:-
"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."
From the aforesaid, it is clear that a document which was not produced when the plaint was presented could be produced with the leave of the Court. From a perusal of the provision of Order 13 Rule(1) and Order 7 Rule 14(3), it is clear, that the provisions are not mandatory and that a document which was not filed at the time of the plaint could be filed thereafter for reasons to be given and, for the reasons to be recorded, the Court can grant leave to a party to produce a document as contemplated under Order 7 Rule 14(3) C.P.C. In the present case, the plaintiff submitted that the original documents could not be produced, inasmuch as, the said document had been seized by the Income Tax department in a raid conducted by them. In support of his submission a list of documents which had been seized was also attached to the application.
Under Order 16 Rule 6 and 7 of the C.P.C., the court is empowered to summon a document from a person. In view of the aforesaid, since reasons were not specified by the trial court, the writ petition is allowed, the matter is remitted back to the trial court to reconsider the application 112-Ga and if the document sought to be produced had actually been seized by the Income Tax authorities and if the court finds that the document is relevant for the disposal of the suit, the court will issue summons as contemplated under Order 16 Rule 6 or 7, as the case may be.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.