BANK OF INDIA, GOA Vs. NORONHA DIAS ENTERPRISES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith.

(2.) Petitioner is the original plaintiff, Bank of India. By the present petition, it seeks to impugn the judgment and order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Margao, Goa on the 1st of November, 1994 in Special Civil Suit No. 184/89/A. By the order, petitioner's application (Exhibit 43) for leave to produce additional documents at the trial has been rejected. The plaintiff has already examined three witnesses in support of its case. It is yet to close its evidence. The application was necessitated on account of certain questions put by the defendant in the cross-examination of the plaintiff's witnesses already examined.

(3.) In my view, provisions of sub-rule (2) of Rule 18 of Order 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply to the case. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 18 of Order 7 lays down in explicit terms that the provisions of Order 7, Rule 14 or Order 7, Rule 18(1) do not apply to the documents produced in answer to a case set up by the defendant. In other words, sub-rule (2) of Rule 18 of Order 7 acts as a proviso or exception to the provisions of Order 7, Rule 14 or Order 7, Rule 18(1) or Order 13, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Thus, where documents are produced in answer to any case set up by the defendant, the aforesaid provisions do not apply and parties are entitled to file documents as of right. Order 7, Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not apply in respect of a document produced to rebut the plea raised by the defendant. A document, in order to rebut the plea raised by the defendant, can be produced in the course of the trial. A party can file a document under Order 7, Rule 18(2) without the leave of the Court in order to meet the case set up by the defendant. By Clause (ii) of Rule 18 of Order 7, nothing in Rule 14 applies to a document produced in answer to any case set up by the defendant.