LAWS(DLH)-2010-2-543

HARKESH SINGH Vs. VED RAJ

Decided On February 02, 2010
HARKESH SINGH Appellant
V/S
VED RAJ Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application the petitioners (defendants in the suit) have assailed order dated 16th April, 2007 whereby application made by the petitioners under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC for taking additional affidavit on record was dismissed by the trial Court.

(2.) When the application was made, the case was at the stage of defendant's evidence and plaintiff's evidence had already been closed. In the application, the defendants stated that due to inadvertence, they could not file few documents along with WS; one was the sale deed of property no. 678, Bhola Nagar and other was Khasra Girdavari of property showing that the property in question was not in possession of the defendants and it belonged to Jai Chand. The learned Civil Judge dismissed the application on the ground that the application was filed without giving any reasons for non-filing of documents at the appropriate stage and the witnesses of plaintiff had already been examined, cross examined and discharged. Allowing of these documents would cause prejudice to the plaintiff.

(3.) Order 7 Rule 14 CPC is in respect of production of documents by the plaintiff along with the plaint. Order 8 Rule 1A requires defendant to produce all documents along with the WS. Order 8 Rule 1A (3) provides that the documents which have not been produced along with the WS cannot be produced in the Court, later on, without the leave of the Court. Order 13 deals with production, impounding and return of documents and provides that the parties to produce all documentary evidence in original before settlement of issues. Order 13 Rule 1(3) CPC makes exception only in respect of those documents which are to be handed over to witnesses for refreshing his memory or to which witness, may be confronted during cross examination. Thus, if any documents are to be produced by a party, the same are to be produced with pleadings. Subsequent production of documents can be done only if the Court is satisfied with the grounds explained for non production of documents.