IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4322 of 2010 Date of Decision: August 30, 2010 Mahinder Singh. …Petitioner Versus A.C.I.G., Ballabgarh and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH. 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be Allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Kul Bhushan Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Vaibhav Parashar, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 to 5,8 and 9. Alok Singh, J. (Oral) Present petition is filed challenging the order dated 08.06.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad, whereby the learned Trial Court has rejected the application of the plaintiffs to produce on record original registered Rehnnama dated 07.08.1970 and certified C.R. No. 4322 of 2010 copy of registered Rehannama dated 27.01.1995, as well as certified copies of judgment and decree dated 08.06.1999 as additional evidence. Plaintiff – petitioner herein filed suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction seeking the decree to the effect that order dated 28.03.2003 passed by the Collector, Ballabgarh, regarding redemption of mortgage of the land in question, is null and void and not binding upon the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs qua the suit land. After the evidence of the plaintiffs and defendants is closed, an application was moved by the plaintiffs to place on record the original registered Rehannama dated 07.08.1970, certified copy of registered Rehannama dated 27.01.1995 and certified copies of judgment and decree dated 08.06.1999 passed in Civil Suit No. 242 of 16.05.1995. Learned Trial Court has rejected the application of the plaintiffs on the ground that there is no mention about these documents either in the plaint nor in the statement of the plaintiff PW1. It was further observed by the learned Trial Court that it has not been proved by the plaintiffs that despite due diligence, he could not place on record the documents sought to be filed, as additional evidence. It was further observed by the learned Trial Court that plaintiffs could not prove as to how the said documents are relevant for the purpose of deciding the case between the parties. 2 C.R. No. 4322 of 2010 Undisputedly, documents sought to be filed as additional evidence are dated 07.08.1970 , 27.01.1995 and 08.06.1999. First two documents are registered Rehannama and third document is judgment and decree. Undisputedly, these documents could not have been prepared during the pendency of the suit. Learned counsel for the petitioner – plaintiff states that all these documents were given to the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, but could not be produced by him in time and all these documents find mentioned in the statement of PW1. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that even after deletion of Order 18 Rule 17-A C.P.C., party seeking to produce additional evidence is required to state and prove that despite of due diligence same could not be produced earlier. Order 7 Rule 14 C.P.C., Order 8 Rule 1-A and Order 13 Rule 1 C.P.C. read as under:- Order 7 Rule 14 C.P.C. “14. Production of document on which plaintiff sues or relies – (1) 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 3 C.R. No. 4322 of 2010 deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the plaint. (2) Where any such document is not in the possession or power of the plaintiff, he shall, where possible, state in whose possession or power it is. (3) 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 produced or entered accordingly, shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit. (4) Nothing in this rule shall apply to document produced for the cross-examination of the plaintiff’s witnesses, or, handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.” Order 8 Rule 1-A CPC “1-A. Duty of defendant to produce documents upon which relief is claimed or relied upon by him – (1) Where the defendant bases his defence upon a document or relies upon any document in his possession or power, in support of his defence or claim for set-off or counter-claim, he shall enter such document in a list, and shall produce it in Court when the written statement is presented by him and shall, at the same time, deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the written statement. 4 C.R. No. 4322 of 2010 (2) Where any such document is not in the possession or power of the defendant, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose possession or power it is. (3) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the defendant under this rule, but, is not so produced shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit. (4) Nothing in this rule shall apply to documents – (a) produced for the cross-examination of the plaintiff’s witnesses, or (b) handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.” Order 13, Rule 1 CPC “1. Original documents to be produced at or before the settlement of issues - (1) The parties or their pleader shall produce on or before the settlement of issues, all the documentary evidence in original where the copies thereof have been filed along with plaint or written statement. (2) The Court shall receive the documents so produced: Provided that they are accompanied by an accurate list thereof prepared in such form as the High Court directs. 5 C.R. No. 4322 of 2010 (3) Nothing in sub-rule (1) shall apply to documents- (a) produced for the cross-examination of the witnesses of the other party; or (b) handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.” Plaintiff and defendant is required to produce documents or their copies upon which plaintiff sues or relies upon or defendant basis his defence or relies upon along with the plaint or written statement, as the case may be, however, a document which ought to be produced in Court but not produced along with plaint or written statement, as the case may, can be produced at the time of hearing of the suit with the leave of the Court. Reading of Order 13 Rule 1 C.P.C. clarifies that if copies of the documents have already been mentioned and produced along with the plaint or written statement then original thereof shall be produced on or before the settlement of issue. However, nothing therein shall apply to the documents produced for the cross-examination of the witness. From sub-rule (3) of Rule 14 of Order 7 and sub- rule (3) of Order 8, Rule 1-A C.P.C., it can be said that any document which ought to have been produced along with the plaint or written statement if not produced, can be produced with the leave of the Court at the subsequent stage at the time 6 C.R. No. 4322 of 2010 of hearing. Any party seeking leave to place on record additional documentary evidence, has to show sufficient reason for not producing the same along with the plaint or written statement, as the case may be. In the present case, plaintiff has stated that he has handed over original registered Rehnnama dated 07.08.1970, certified copy of registered Rehannama dated 27.01.1995 and certified copy of the judgment and decree dated 08.06.1999 to his counsel but due to oversight mistake and negligence of the counsel, the same could not be produced by him at the time of hearing of the suit. Reasons shown by the plaintiff are sufficient to grant leave to the plaintiff to produce all these documents in evidence at the time of hearing of the suit. Moreover, all these documents are old one and can throw light over the matter. The observation of the Trial Court that plaintiff could not prove the relevancy and admissibility of the document does not hold water. In my considered view, relevancy and admissibility of the additional evidence sought to be produced, can only be seen when document is admitted in the evidence. Not only this, if at the later stage Court finds that additional evidence produced with the leave of the Court is irrelevant or inadmissible then Court can reject such evidence while invoking Rule 3 Order 13 C.P.C. which reads as under:- 7 C.R. No. 4322 of 2010 “3. Rejection of irrelevant or inadmissible documents. – The Court may at any stage of the suit reject any document which it considers irrelevant or otherwise inadmissible, recording the grounds of such rejection.” In my considered view, to adjudicate the lis between the parties, ample opportunity should be granted to both the parties to lead entire evidence before the Court and hypertechnical approach should not be adopted by the Court to deny the party to lead evidence. In view of the observations made herein above, plaintiff ought to have been granted leave to produce additional evidence. Defendants can be compensated by way of costs. Present petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. Application moved by the plaintiffs to place on record the documents as additional evidence is allowed, subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- as costs. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on 08.09.2010 for further proceedings in accordance with law. However, it is made clear that respondents – defendants shall be at liberty to file documentary evidence in rebuttal to the additional evidence permitted to be filed by the plaintiffs within such time as directed by learned trial Court. 8 C.R. No. 4322 of 2010 August 30, 2010 ( Alok Singh ) vkd Judge 9