CR No. 1046 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. CR No. 1046 of 2009 Date of Decision: 08.04.2010 Santosh Aggarwal ....Petitioner Versus Pardeep Kumar and others ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh. 1.Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. R.K. Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Aggarwal, Advocate ... Alok Singh, J. (Oral). 1. Present petition is filed impugning the order dated 14.1.2009 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, (Sr. Division) Safidon, in Civil Suit No.163 of 1.4.2006, whereby the trial Court has rejected the application of the plaintiff – petitioner to permit him to produce additional documentary evidence on record. 2. Plaintiff has filed suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from raising any construction over the suit land and from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit land. The trial Court granted ad interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff, which was unsuccessfully CR No. 1046 of 2009 2 challenged before the Appellate Court and thereafter, the matter was carried to this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which was registered as C.R. No.2840 of 2007. This Court instead of disturbing the ad interim injunction, disposed of the earlier CR No.2840 of 2007 vide order dated 24.5.2007 by observing that the plaintiff shall produce the evidence within two months after framing of issues. 3. In the present case, issues were framed on 21.9.2007 and plaintiff has concluded his evidence on 6.11.2007 within the time fixed by this Court. Plaintiff thereafter moved an application seeking permission from the trial Court to produce documentary evidence on record saying documentary evidence (farad-badar 11, 12 and 13) came into existence on 2.7.2008 i.e. after closing the plaintiff’s evidence. The trial Court rejected the application of the plaintiff on the ground that Order 18 Rule 17(A) CPC has been omitted and as per the directions of this Court vide order dated 24.5.2007, plaintiff had to conclude his evidence within two months and after the expiry of two months, plaintiff cannot be permitted to lead additional evidence. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Both the learned counsel for the parties fairly stated that Order 13 Rule 1 as well as Order 18 Rule 17A CPC as stood prior to 2001 amendments have been omitted. After 2001 Amendment, procedure to produce documentary evidence is under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC for the plaintiff for the defendant is provided under Order 8 Rule 1A CPC. As per both the provisions, either under Order 7 Rule 14 or under Order 8 Rule 1A, documentary evidence is required to be entered into such documents in CR No. 1046 of 2009 3 a list, which is to be filed along with the pleadings and if such documents are not in possession of the plaintiff or defendant as the case may be, shall be shown in whose possession or power it is. Both the provisions further provide that with the leave of the Court, such documentary evidence which could not be produced along with the pleadings can be produced at any subsequent stage. Order 7 Rule 14 and Order 8 Rule 1A CPC are being reproduced hereunder: - “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 document 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. (2) Where any such document is not in the possession or power of the plaintiff, he shall, wherever 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 plaintiffs witnesses, or, handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.” CR No. 1046 of 2009 4 “1A. 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. (2) Where any such document is not in 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.” 6. A perusal of both the provisions would reveal that after 2001 amendment in the Code, documentary evidence is to be filed along with the pleadings and if not filed with the pleadings, the same can be produced, with the leave of the Court at the subsequent stage also. The lower Court did not care to look into the provisions of CPC as reproduced hereinabove. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the defendants CR No. 1046 of 2009 5 have also produced documentary evidence after the pleadings hence, he may also be permitted to file documentary evidence, which could have not been filed in view of the fact that the same came into existence after the pleadings were filed. 8. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case that documents sought to be filed were not in existence at the time of filing of the pleadings and during the production of evidence, learned trial Court ought to have exercised its jurisdiction – discretion by permitting the plaintiff to lead additional evidence. 9. In view of the above, application of the plaintiff seeking permission to place on record documentary evidence is allowed. However, it is made clear that admissibility of the documents and relateability of the documents shall be seen at the time of final disposal of the case. 10. Petition stands disposed of. ( Alok Singh ) Judge 08.04.2010 sk.