Skip to content


O.P. Sanghi Vs. Manufacturers Co-operative Industrial Estate Ltd. and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided On
Case NumberInterim Application No. 3783 of 1981 and Suit No. 69 of 1976
Judge
Reported in24(1983)DLT296
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 13, Rule 2
AppellantO.P. Sanghi
RespondentManufacturers Co-operative Industrial Estate Ltd. and ors.
Advocates: M.G. Ramachandran and; B.J. Nayyar, Advs
Cases Referred and Chittar Mal v. Shanti Aggarwal
Excerpt:
.....the documents - the parties were required to produce all the documentary evidence on or before the settlement of issues - accordingly, in view of the facts and circumstances, it was held that it would not be possible to grant leave to defendant to filed documents - - 2 effect of non-production of documents :(1) no documentary evidence in the possession or power of any party which should have been but has not been produced in accordance with the requirements of rule 1 shall be received at any subsequent stage of the proceedings unless good cause is shown to the satisfaction of the court for the non-production thereof; at or before the settlement of the issues, the same shall not be received at the sub-sequent stage unless good cause is shown for non-production of the documents. the..........rule 1 parties are required to produce all documentary evidence on or before the settlement of issues. rule 2 provides that if documents have not been produced according to rule 1 i.e. at or before the settlement of the issues, the same shall not be received at the sub-sequent stage unless good cause is shown for non-production of the documents. sub-rule (1) of rule 2 has two parts. the first part casts a duty upon a party to show good cause for non-production of the document at or before the settlement of issues and second part requires the court to give reasons for receiving the documents late. sub-rule (1) makes the satisfactory explanationn for non-production at or before the settlement of issues a condition precedent for late reception of documents. a reading of the application.....
Judgment:

Sultan Singh, J.

(1) This is an application under Order 13 Rule 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure on behalf of defendant' 1 to 3 seeking leave to place on record copies of the resolutions dated 27th May, 1971, 10th June, 1972, 14th July, 1972, 28th September, 1972 30th November, 1972, 28th March, 1973 and 28th September, 1973 alleged to have been passed in the meetings of the Board of Directors of defendant No. 1 and a Copy of ledger Folio No. 312 and 318 of 1973-74.

(2) It is alleged that defendant No. 1 is a Go-operative society that it takes decision by passing resolutions from time to time, that the minute book of the defendant No. 1 was put in cross-examination toP.W.3 Sardar Singh who was treasurer of defendant No, 1. It is alleged' that the said copies were prepared by the witness D.W. 1 and attested by the Joint Director of Industries, that the documents are relevant and necessary for the decision of the suit, that relevancy and genuineness cannot be disputed, that the plaintiff is not taken by surprise, and that technically there is no delay and the documents will advance ends of justice Under these circumstances it is prayed that leave be granted for placing these documents on record within the meaning of Order 13Rulesl and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(3) Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the claim in suit is for recovery of money for the work done by the plaintiff for the defendants. The issues in the suit were framed on 29th August, 1978. The first witness Public Witness . 1 was examined on and from 26th August, 1981. The plaintiff closed his evidence on 7th April, 1983, that no cause has been disclosed in the application for non-filing of the documents during the period from September, 1978 to this date.

(4) Order 13 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure read as follows:

'1.Documentary evidence to be produced ( at or before the settlement of issues): (1) The parties or their pleaders shall produce (at or before the settlement of issues all the documentary evidence of every description in their possession or power, on which they intend to rely, and which has not already been filed in Court, and all documents which the court has ordered to be produced. (2) The court shall receive the documents so produced: Provided that they are accompanied by an accurate list thereof prepared in such form as the High Court directs. 2 Effect of non-production of documents : (1) No documentary evidence in the possession or power of any party which should have been but has not been produced in accordance with the requirements of Rule 1 shall be received at any subsequent stage of the proceedings unless good cause is shown to the satisfaction of the court for the non-production thereof; and the court receiving any such evidence shall record the reasons for so doing. (2) Nothing in Sub-rule (1) shall apply to documents,- (a) produced for the cross-examination of the witnesses of the other party, or b) handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.'

(5) Under Rule 1 parties are required to produce all documentary evidence on or before the settlement of issues. Rule 2 provides that if documents have not been produced according to Rule 1 i.e. at or before the settlement of the issues, the same shall not be received at the sub-sequent stage unless good cause is shown for non-production of the documents. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 2 has two parts. The first part casts a duty upon a party to show good cause for non-production of the document at or before the settlement of issues and second part requires the court to give reasons for receiving the documents late. Sub-rule (1) makes the satisfactory Explanationn for non-production at or before the settlement of issues a condition precedent for late reception of documents. A reading of the application shows that no Explanationn for late production is disclosed and only ground for leave to place these documents on the record is that these documents are relevant and will advance ends of justice. There is not a single word in the application as to why these documents were not filed with written statement or at or before the framing of the issues. On 29th August, 1978 when the issues were framed the parties were allowed further time to file documents in their possession and power with list of reliance within two weeks thereafter. No step, it appears, was taken by the defendants to comply with the order dated 29th August, 1978. These documents were in possession of defendant No. 1 at all relevant times. Learned counsel for the defendants has referred to Khanciland Saindaa v. U O.I. 1978 RLR 37 and Chittar Mal v. Shanti Aggarwal 1979 RLR 542. In those cases Explanationn for not filing the documents were available besides other circumstances. As no good cause is shown for non-production of the documents in accordance with Rule I of Order 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is not possible to grant leave to the defendant to file these documents at this stage when plaintiff has already closed his evident . The documents cannot be allowed to be filed merely on the ground that they are relevant. Irrelevant documents are not allowed to be filed. For recant documents the case has to be made out as required by Order 13 rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Nothing has been said by any responsible officer of defendant No. 1 as to why these documents were not filed earlier. The application for failure to disclose any good cause lor non filing of documents in accordance with Rule I of Order 13 of the Code is dismissed. No order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //