Naveen Pathak & Anr. vs Ashok Negi

Hon’ble Siddhartha Sah, J. (oral)

By means of the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have sought the following reliefs:-

The facts necessary for the adjudication of the present writ petition, are as follows:

Aggrieved against the order dated 18.07.2024, the petitioners/defendants filed a revision, which was dismissed by the First Additional District Judge, Dehradun vide judgment and order dated 27.07.2026.

Assailing the impugned aforesaid orders, learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants has drawn the attention of the Court to provisions of Order VII, Rule 14 of CPC and Order XIII, Rule 1 of CPC, which are extracted hereunder for ready reference:-

Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants would submit that Order VII Rule 14 of the CPC envisages that it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to file the documents on which the plaintiff sues or relies at the time of institution of the suit.

Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants would further submit that, as per the provisions of Order XIII Rule 1 of the CPC, the original documents are required to be produced at or before the settlement of issues. He would further submit that the CPC does not provide for filing any documents thereafter. In the backdrop of the aforesaid provisions of Order VII Rule 14 and Order XIII Rule 1 of the CPC, learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants would submit that the learned trial court erred in allowing the application (Paper No. 69C-2) and permitting the plaintiff/respondent to bring the documents on record.

He would fairly submit that although the court has the discretion to accept documents on record, an unfettered exercise of such discretion would give rise to an unending process.

It is further the case of the petitioners/defendants that, as per the admission of the plaintiff/respondent himself, the learned trial court had orally permitted him to place certain photographs on record. However, taking advantage of the said permission, the plaintiff/respondent has placed umpteen documents on record. Learned counsel would thus submit that the plaintiff/respondent has acted beyond the scope of the permission granted by the learned trial court. He would, therefore, submit that the impugned orders are dehors the provisions of the CPC and cannot be sustained. Since the courts below have committed an illegality, the impugned orders deserve to be quashed.

Learned counsel for the defendants/petitioners would further submit that he has no objection to the extent that the documents sought to be brought on record are photographs; however, he vehemently opposes the production of any documents other than the photographs.

Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent would submit that the documents sought to be brought on record by way of the application (Paper No. 69C-2) were necessary for the just and effective adjudication of the case. He would further submit that bringing the said documents on record would not alter the nature of the case. He would thus submit that the impugned orders are fully justified and in accordance with law and do not warrant any interference by this Court.

Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the records, it is evident that Order VII Rule 14 of the CPC envisages that the plaintiff/respondent is required to produce the documents at the time of institution of the suit and Order XIII Rule 1 of the CPC also provides that the parties may produce the documents at or before the settlement of issues. However, learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants could not point out any provision of the CPC which prohibits a party from bringing any document on record after the settlement of issues.

When the query was made to the learned counsel for the parties as to what was the stage of the trial, learned counsel for the parties would submit that the trial was at the stage post framing of issues. However, the plaintiff/respondent was yet to file the affidavit of examination-in-chief. It was at this stage that the aforesaid application (Paper No. 69C-2) was filed along with the list of documents and the documents sought to be brought on record.

Faced with such an eventuality, what falls for determination before this Court is whether either of the parties can be permitted to place on record documents, which are necessary for the just and effective adjudication of the case, after the settlement of issues. Although the provisions of Order XIV Rule 1 and Order XIII Rule 1 of the CPC provide for the filing of documents at or before the settlement of issues, whether the Court can permit the filing of documents beyond that stage is the moot question that arises for consideration in the present case.

Although there is no specific provision extending the time prescribed under Order XIII Rule 1 of the CPC, it is well settled that procedure is a handmaiden of justice. Procedural and technical hurdles should not be allowed to come in the way of the Court in the dispensation of substantial justice. Where a procedural violation does not cause serious prejudice to the opposite party, the settled position of law is that the Court must lean in favour of substantial justice rather than allowing procedural or technical violations to defeat the same.

A similar matter arose before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sugandhi (Dead) by Legal Representatives and Another vs. P. Rajkumar, represented by his Power Agent Imam Oli, reported in (2020) 10 SCC 706. In that case, the documents had not been filed along with the written statement, and the application seeking permission to bring them on record was rejected. The revision preferred against the said order was also dismissed by the High Court. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while considering the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1A of the CPC, observed that procedure is a handmaiden of justice and that procedural and technical hurdles should not be allowed to come in the way of the Court while dispensing substantial justice. Taking a liberal view, the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the application for production of documents under Order VIII Rule 1A of the CPC. Paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the said judgment are extracted hereunder for ready reference:-

Since procedure is a handmaiden of justice and Sub-Rule (3) of Order VII Rule 14 CPC is couched in similar language as Sub-Rule (3) of Order VIII Rule 1-A CPC, the Court, in appropriate cases, can permit the parties to produce documents on record for the just and effective adjudication of the case. In the present case, the plaintiff/respondent admitted that the learned trial court had orally permitted him to place certain documents on record. To that extent, the defendants/petitioners had no objection. Their only objection was that the plaintiff/respondent had gone beyond the scope of the oral permission granted by the learned trial court and had placed certain additional documents on record, which were beyond the scope of even the said oral permission.

In the present case, the procedural violation does not entail any further consequence. Moreover, the production of the said documents would not cause any serious prejudice to the rights of the defendants/petitioners, as it would always be open to them to rebut the documentary evidence by producing documentary evidence in their defense. Such rebuttal evidence may also be brought on record by the defendants/petitioners, in accordance with law. In view of the aforesaid, and keeping in mind the settled principle that procedure is a handmaiden of justice as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sugandhi (supra) wherein in similar circumstances documents were permitted to be taken on record, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned orders warranting interference. Accordingly, no ground for interference with the impugned orders is made out.

In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court does not find any merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the defendants/petitioners. Accordingly, the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

The present writ petition is, thus, dismissed with the aforesaid observations.