EMERALD INDUSTRIES Vs. OMPRAKASH BADRETIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of parties, the matter is heard finally.

(2.) The present misc. petition has been filed being aggrieved by the order dated 16.01.2019 by which the learned trial Court has rejected the application under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) read with Section 151 of CPC by which the application seeking relief to produce on record the report dated 21.07.2017 lodged at Police Station Bijoli.

(3.) The contention of the petitioners is that the aforesaid application has been rejected only on the ground of delay and further it is not mentioned that who has received the said document. There is no seal appended to the aforesaid document. The petitioners have relied upon the judgment passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Bada Bodaiah and Anr. vs. Bada Lingaswamy and Ors. reported in 2003 A I H C 1285, wherein it is held that Order 13 Rule 1 and Order 7 Rule 14(3) of CPC have to be read together harmoniously. Reading together would lead to the conclusion that if the plaintiff applies for permission or leave to produce documents to be received in evidence at the hearing of the suit which documents were not produced on or before the settlement of the issues or at the time of production of the plaint, the Court has to exercise sound discretion having regard to the facts and circumstances of the each case. Mere non-mention of the documents in the plaint or subsequent incidental or supplemental proceedings in the suit does not in any manner affect the power of the Court to grant leave to produce the documents at the subsequent stage. Non-mentioning of the documents sought to be produced at the subsequent stage is a curable defect. He has prayed for setting aside of the impugned order with further direction that the application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) of CPC read with Section 151 be allowed and the documents be permitted to be taken on record.