M/S. NARANDAS ANANDJI Vs. PATEL HARILAL VELJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner/plaintiff which is a registered partnership firm, filed Regular Civil Suit No. 86 of 1986 in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.) at Junagadh, for monetary decree. It appears that till the evidence of plaintiff was over the registration certificate, i.e., extract from the Register of Firms, was not produced. However, when the same was found, a copy was produced vide Ex. 28. The Court permitted production of the document on condition of payment of cost and on condition of production of original. While allowing production it was also observed that so far as question of exhibiting the document is concerned, would be considered after production of original. It is in this background that the petitioner/plaintiff produced original document along with application Ex. 29 with a further request to recall the plaintiffs witnesses to prove the document. The application Ex. 29 was rejected. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner/plaintiff has preferred this revision application.

(2.) It is true that parties to the suit are required to produce all the documents before settlement of issues as provided under Order 13 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. But, at the same time, there is no bar that if a party misses that stage, production cannot be allowed at a later stage. To take care of such contingency, provisions are made in Rule 2 Order 13 of the Code that on showing good cause to the satisfaction of Court for non-production thereof before framing of issues, the Court may permit production after recording reasons. In this case vide order passed below Ex. 28 the Court below for the reasons recorded, allowed production of documents at a belated stage. It appears that the Court was also satisfied about the reasons for non-production at the stage of framing issues.

(3.) In a proceeding, mere production of a document is not sufficient because unless the document is proved in accordance with rules of evidence the same cannot be received and read in evidence by the Court of law to appreciate the rival contentions. A document has to be proved and in order to prove the document, oral evidence has to be adduced. In this case, the petitioner requested the Court to recall witness for proving the document which has been permitted to be produced after the evidence was over. Thus, having permitted the production, it will not be in the interest of justice not to give opportunity for proving the same. The denial amounts to depriving a party of its valuable right to adduce evidence and prove document according to law.