Parties May Adduce Necessary Documentary Evidence At Later Stage If Sufficient Ground For Delay Shown: Jharkhand High Court
Bhavya Singh
16 July 2024 6:07 AM GMT
The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that documentary evidence not submitted at the time of filing a written statement may be introduced at subsequent stages of a suit, provided due diligence was exercised in their production.
Justice Subhash Chand observed, “The learned trial court while rejecting the application of the plaintiff has not considered this legal position that if the documentary evidence was not filed at the time of written statement despite due diligence, the same may be taken on record at subsequent stage if those documents are necessary for the adjudication of the issues between the parties. Even after the deletion of the provision under Order XVIII Rule 17A of the CPC, the parties may adduce the evidence at later stage of suit showing the sufficient ground not producing them at the time of filing suit or at the time of filing written statement.”
The above ruling came in a writ petition filed on behalf of the petitioner against a 2016 order passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division)-I, Gumla in a Title Suit whereby the petition was filed by the petitioner under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) C.P.C. for grant of leave to produce the documents was rejected.
In this case, the petitioner sought leave to present documents under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) C.P.C., but the request was denied by the trial court. Aggrieved by this decision, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
The petitioner argued that during the plaintiff's evidence stage, the defendant had applied to introduce certain documents that were not filed with the written statement. This application was subsequently rejected by the trial court.
The Court observed, "It is admitted fact that in the suit, the evidence of plaintiff had been closed at the time of moving the application on behalf of the defendant to take certain documents on record and the evidence of the defendant has not commenced. So far as the reason for not producing these documents on behalf of the defendant at the time of filing the written statement is concerned, the same is shown by the defendant in his very application which has not been controverted on behalf of the plaintiff.”
The Court placed reliance on the judgement in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu vs. Union of India, whereby it was noted that if, despite exercising due diligence, the documentary evidence was not filed with the written statement, it may still be admitted later if it is necessary to resolve the disputes between the parties. The parties may present evidence at a later stage in the suit if there is a good reason for not producing it at the time of filing the suit or the written statement, even though the provision under Order XVIII Rule 17A of the CPC has been deleted, it was further observed.
Based on these considerations, the Court set aside the impugned order passed by the trial court.
Case Title: Budhuwa Oraon V. .Ghura Oraon
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 114
