J K JAIN Vs. KRISHNARAM BALDEO INVESTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 3rd September 2007 passed by the learned trial court whereby the learned trial court allowed an application under Order 8 rule 1a (3) and read with Section 151 of CPC for filing additional documents during pendency of the trial at the stage of evidence. The petitioner had sought to place on record memorandum of article of association of the plaintiff company, minutes of the meeting of Board of Directors and minutes of General body Meeting, handwritten notes of Special Executive official, bank statements and pass book entries, contending therein that all these documents were relevant and material of just decision of the case. However, the petitioner did not state as to how these documents were relevant. The court below observed that the documents were sought to be produced after a lapse of two and a quarter year of framing of issues and after completion of the plaintiff's evidence. The defendant had taken many opportunities for his evidence and ultimately it filed affidavit of witness annexed with several new documents without the leave of the court. The application seeking leave of the Court was filed only after objection was taken against annexing documents with affidavit. The court considered the relevancy of each of the documents, although the petitioner had not stated the relevancy of the documents and allowed the petitioners to produce bank statements and pass book entries on the ground that they were relevant, subject to costs and rest of the documents were not taken on record. The petitioner wants that rest of the documents should also be taken on record.

(2.) ORDER 8 Rule 1 (A) reads as under:-

(3.) THE above provisions of CPC make it abundantly clear that all documents relied upon are required to be produced by the defendant along with the written statement. Subsequent thereto documents cannot be produced without the leave of the Court. The Court may permit the production of such documents only on showing sufficient cause. In the present case, the documents sought to be produced by the petitioner later on were not such which were not in the power of the petitioner or could not have been obtained by the petitioner. The petitioner had not made any reference to these documents in the written statement neither filed a list of documents relied upon. I find no reason as to why the court should allow filing of such documents at a belated stage when the petitioner is not able to satisfy the court about the relevancy of these documents and reasons for not filing the same with the written statement or before framing of issues.