PUNJAB AND SIND BANK Vs. PRADEEP KUMAR KAPOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a suit filed under Order XXXVII, C.P.C. for the recovery of Rs. 8,541.90 the plaintiff-petitioner prayed for the production of some cheques and specimen signatures card allegedly issued and signed by defendant No. 1. The application was rejected vide the order impugned herein mainly on the ground that as the plaintiff has failed to show any good ground for the non-production of documents at the earlier stage the prayer could not be allowed. It is sub-mitted that the Court below has not exercised the jurisdiction properly requiring interfer-ence by this Court.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(3.) Order XIII, Rule 1, C.P.C. provides that the parties or their pleaders shall produce at the first hearing of the suit, all the docu-mentary evidence of every description in their possession or power, on which they intend to rely. Rule 2 of Order XIII, however, provides that no documentary evidence in possession or power of any party which should have been but has not been produced in accordance with the requirement of Rule 1 shall be received at any subsequent stage of the proceedings un-less good cause is shown to the satisfaction of the Court for the non-production thereof and the Court receiving any such evidence shall record reasons for so doing. It is enjoined upon the parties to lay their documents before the Court at the earliest possible opportunity. The rule is peremptory necessitating for production of the documents at the first hearing. However, the object of the rule is not to penalise the parties and the Court has discretion under Rule 2 of Order XIII to receive any document at a later stage if there is no suspicion about the genuineness of the document. The plaintiff is required to pro-duce and deliver into the Court all such documents upon which he sues along with the plaint in terms of Order VII, Rule 14, C.P.C. For other documents whether in his posses-sion or power or not, the plaintiff is required at least to submit the list thereafter at the time of filing of the plaint. The plaintiff is not required to anticipate the defence of the defendant and is authorised to produce such further documents after the filing of the written statement but before framing of the issues in terms of Order XIII, C.P.C. Before permitting a party to produce document at a later stage, the erring party is required to submit a satisfactory explanation for its non-production at the first hearing. The rule is, however, required to be liberally construed so as to advance the cause of justice provided some plausible explanation is given by the erring party for non-production of the docu-ment at the earlier stage. No party can be allowed to produce documents at his option or pleasure without giving or assigning any sufficient cause.