Mrs Kshama Gupta vs Manish Gupta

Respondent (Husband) filed a Suit under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 seeking a declaration that he is joint owner of the property mentioned in plaint, with his wife (appellant). He also sought permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the agents, legal heirs, representatives, etc. of the wife from selling, transferring, mortgaging the suit property in favour of any other person or from creating any charge on such property, and mandatory injunction was also sought by respondent directing the appellant to hand over original files of GST returns belonging to the business, which respondent was allegedly running exclusively in the name and style of M/s Om Enterprises.

Appellant (wife) filed written statement denying the plaint averments and she contended that the suit property was purchased by her from her own capital and resources and plaintiff has no direct or indirect relation with the suit property.

After exchange of pleadings and framing of issues, parties entered the witness box and evidence of the parties has concluded. Upon conclusion of evidence, when the matter was at the stage of final argument, appellant moved application before the Family Court seeking recall of the order dated 24.06.2026, whereby, her evidence was closed; by that application, appellant also sought permission to file some additional documents in evidence.

Appellant’s application was rejected by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Rishikesh, District Dehradun, vide order dated 10.09.2026, which is under challenge in this Appeal.

The order dated 24.06.2026, recall whereof was sought by appellant, is on record. Perusal of said order reveals that since appellant named only herself as witness in the list of witnesses filed with her written statement, therefore, after recording deposition of appellant, her evidence was closed and the matter was posted for final hearing on 01.07.2026.

The Suit filed by respondent was thereafter taken up by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court on 21.07.2026 and on that date, plaintiff (respondent herein) was granted permission to cross-examine the defendant/appellant-Kshama Gupta and pursuant to the permission given, appellant-defendant was cross-examined by plaintiff, and thereafter, the evidence was closed and the matter was posted for final hearing.

We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 10.09.2026 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court. Learned Family Court has given valid reasons for granting permission to plaintiff to cross-examine the defendant-appellant.

Learned counsel for appellant submits that the prayer made by appellant for producing additional evidence was wrongly denied and she was in fact entitled to produce such evidence on record. Order VIII Rule 1A of the Code of Civil Procedure is reproduced below:-

Thus, as per the aforesaid provision, it is incumbent upon a party to the suit to submit list of documents with his written statement and in that list, all documents on which defendant places reliance upon, should be mentioned.

Sub-Rule(2) of Rule 1A of Order VIII CPC ordains that if there is some document which is not in possession or power of the defendant at the time of submitting list of documents, then he/she shall, wherever possible, mention in whose possession or power such document lies. Reading of sub-Rule(3) of Rule 1A of Order VIII CPC reveals that defendant does not have a vested right to produce additional documents at the trial stage and additional documents can be produced only after it is permitted to be received in evidence by the Court. The party making such prayer has to show reasonable cause or due diligence for not producing them earlier.

Learned counsel for appellant relies upon Section 14 of the Family Courts act, 1984, which reads as under:-

Section 14 enables a Family Court to receive any report, statement, document, information or any other matter as evidence, if it is of the opinion that it may help the Court to deal effectually with the dispute. Section 14 is thus an enabling provision and it does not create any right in favour of a party to the litigation.

The application filed by appellant, which was rejected by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, does not indicate which document appellant wants to produce and the purpose for which such document is sought to be filed. Thus, the impugned order cannot be faulted.

Learned counsel for appellant then submits that appellant wants to place on record bank statements and certain other documents to show that property in-question was purchased by appellant from her funds, which she received upon death of her father, who had bequeathed some property in her favour.

Since the documents, which appellant reportedly wants to produce before Family Court at a belated stage, were within her knowledge at the time of filing of written statement, therefore, she was rightly denied permission. No party can be permitted to develop a new case by producing additional documents, when the Suit is at the stage of final arguments. Thus, there is no scope of interference.

Accordingly, this appeal fails and is dismissed in-limine.

Pending application stands disposed of.