2020 (10) TMI 1251 - SC - Indian Laws

Refusal to entertain an application under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - seeking leave of the court to produce additional documents - HELD THAT - Subrule (1) mandates the defendant to produce the documents in his possession before the court and file the same along with his written statement. He must list out the documents which are in his possession or power as well as those which are not. In case the defendant does not file any document or copy thereof along with his written statement such a document shall not be allowed to be received in evidence on behalf of the defendant at the hearing of the suit - Subrule (3) states that a document which is not produced at the time of filing of the written statement shall not be received in evidence except with the leave of the court. Rule (1) of Order 13 of C.P.C. again makes it mandatory for the parties to produce their original documents before settlement of issues. It is often said that procedure is the handmaid of justice. Procedural and technical hurdles shall not be allowed to come in the way of the court while doing substantial justice. If the procedural violation does not seriously cause prejudice to the adversary party courts must lean towards doing substantial justice rather than relying upon procedural and technical violation. Coming to the present case the defendants have filed an application assigning cogent reasons for not producing the documents along with the written statement. They have stated that these documents were missing and were only traced at a later stage. It cannot be disputed that these documents are necessary for arriving at a just decision in the suit - the courts below ought to have granted leave to produce these documents. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Interpretation of Order 8 Rule 1A(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 regarding the production of additional documents by the defendant.
- Judicial discretion in granting leave to produce documents after the initial deadline.
- Balancing procedural rules with the principles of substantial justice in civil proceedings.

Interpretation of Order 8 Rule 1A(3):
The judgment revolves around the interpretation of Order 8 Rule 1A(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which mandates the defendant to produce documents in his possession before the court and file them along with the written statement. The rule also stipulates that any document not produced at this stage shall not be received in evidence without the court's permission. The judges emphasized the importance of listing out all relevant documents and the necessity of producing them promptly to ensure a fair trial. They highlighted the exceptions to this rule, such as documents produced for cross-examination or to refresh a witness's memory.

Judicial Discretion in Granting Leave:
The judgment delves into the judicial discretion granted to the court under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) to allow the defendant to produce documents after the initial deadline with the court's permission. The judges stressed that this discretion must be exercised judiciously, requiring the defendant to show good cause for the delay. They outlined that the court should adopt a lenient view when considering applications for late document production, focusing on substantial justice rather than procedural technicalities. The judgment underscored the court's role in uncovering the truth in disputes and the importance of ensuring a just decision based on all relevant evidence.

Balancing Procedural Rules with Substantial Justice:
The judgment emphasized the principle that procedural rules should not impede the court from delivering substantial justice. It highlighted that procedural and technical hurdles should not hinder the court from reaching the truth, which forms the basis of justice. The judges underscored that courts should prioritize substantial justice over procedural violations, especially when such violations do not cause significant prejudice to the opposing party. In this case, the court found that the defendants had valid reasons for the delayed production of documents, which were essential for a fair trial. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned orders, and granted permission for the defendants to produce the necessary documents, emphasizing the importance of reaching a just decision in civil proceedings.