SURJAN AHIR Vs. RAM SINGH RAJPUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff (hereafter 'plaintiff') and perused the impugned order dated 3.8.2018 passed by the Trial Court dismissing the plaintiff's application filed under Order 7, Rule 14 (3) CPC.

(2.) Order 7, Rule 14 (1) CPC provides that where a plaintiff sues upon a document or relies upon document in his possession or power in support of his claim, he shall enter such documents in a list, and shall produce it in Court when the plaint is presented by him and shall, at the same time deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the plaint. Sub-rule (2) of Order 7, Rule 14 CPC provides that where documents are not in the possession or power of the plaintiff, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose possession or power they are. Order 7, Rule 14(3) CPC provides that a document which ought to be produced in Court by the plaintiff when the plaint is presented, or to be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint but is not so produced or entered accordingly, it shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit.

(3.) The aforesaid provisions of CPC do make it near imperative for the plaintiff to file all documents in support of his suit in the first instance and make a reference thereto in the list of documents filed alongwith suit. Indeed Order 7, Rule 14 (3) CPC as an exception to the normal rule allows document not so filed, to be subsequently filed, but only with the leave of the Court. That leave of the Court entails the exercise of its discretion in allowing or not allowing a document belatedly filed to be taken on record and received in evidence.