Hari@Harish Chandra Behera vs Niladri Rout And Others

B.P. Routray, J

Heard Mr. A.P. Bose, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, Mr. B. Baug, learned Senior Advocate for the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 and Mr. T.K. Mishra, learned Advocate for the Opposite Parties 6 to 9.

It is submitted on behalf of the parties that Opposite Parties 1 & 2 along with Opposite Parties 6 to 9 are the contesting parties and the presence of other Opposite Parties may not be necessary before this Court.

Present C.M.P. is directed against order dated 22.01.2025 of learned 3rd Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Cuttack passed in C.M.A. No.180 of 2021, wherein the prayer of the Petitioner to accept certain documents in evidence has been refused.

Present Petitioner in the execution proceeding of the decree filed the petition under Order 21 Rule 99 read with Rule 101 of the C.P.C. praying to protect his possession, which is registered as C.M.A. No.180 of 2021. The Opposite Parties filed their reply. In course of hearing of the petition and before adducing evidence, the Petitioner filed a petition dated 08.01.2025 praying to grant leave to receive certain documents (30 documents as per the schedule) in evidence. The learned trial court rejected the same on the ground that the documents so filed by the Petitioner are the photocopies and therefore being in nature of secondary evidence cannot be accepted in evidence.

Mr. A.P. Bose, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that, though the C.M.A. has not reached the stage of adducing evidence, such a prayer of the Petitioner to bring those documents on record may be treated as a prayer under Order 7 Rule 14 C.P.C. He further submits that at this stage before beginning of the evidence, the court is debarred from opining upon merits of such documents that the same cannot be accepted in evidence.

Mr. B. Baug, learned Senior Counsel as well as Mr. T.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the respective opposite parties submit that, the prayer in the petition dated 08.01.2025 is to accept those documents in evidence, which are photocopies only, and therefore, the learned trial court is right in refusing such prayer with observation that those documents cannot be accepted in evidence.

Admittedly, the C.M.A. is at the stage of hearing where evidence is yet to begin. It is submitted on behalf of the Petitioner to accept those documents on record in terms of Order 7 Rule 14 C.P.C.

Order 7 rule 14 C.P.C. specifies that, a document which ought to be produced along with the plaint may not be accepted without leave of the court if it is produced in evidence. But here in the present case, admittedly, the case has not reached to the stage of evidence and the Petitioner filed such a petition producing photocopies of those documents before beginning his evidence.

It is true that production of documents at the time of filing of the plaint is different from production of documents in evidence. As a matter of evidence, the court has to examine the admissibility of the documents to be received in evidence. In the case at hand, the documents were not produced at the time of filing of the plaint, i.e. C.M.A. No.180 of 2021. So, in terms of sub-rule (3) of Rule 14 of Order 7 C.P.C., the Plaintiff can produce those documents only at the stage of evidence, once he has failed to file those documents along with the plaint. This provision applies to production of documents by a Plaintiff and in any case, the provision is discretionary and it has to be operated in a manner that Court is able to ascertain the truth and put an end to the controversy. When a document is received in evidence of course the admissibility of the document has to be looked into. But what is contended on behalf of the Petitioner that those documents are not produced in evidence, but to be taken on record which the Petitioner could not file at the time of filing of the C.M.A. is thus not permissible before the case reaches the stage of evidence.

The prayer of the Petitioner as seen in the petition is to receive those documents in evidence, which are the photocopies only instead of originals or certified copies. It is true that, a document cannot be accepted in evidence without any pleading made to that effect. Thus, the court has rightly entered into the merit of the documents to reject receipt of all those documents produced by the Petitioner. However, keeping in view the fact that the Petitioner has referred to certain sale deeds and some other documents in the body of the C.M.A., it is felt appropriate in the interest of justice to permit him to produce those documents at the stage of evidence subject to the admissibility of documents.

In the circumstances stated above, the C.M.P. is disposed of permitting the Petitioner to produce such documents at the stage of evidence, subject to the condition that pleadings are there in the C.M.A. application to that effect, and it is open for the learned Executing Court to assess the admissibility of those documents separately in consonance with law.