PRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 14(3) OF CODE OF CIVIL

PROCEDURE

1. Sadhu Forging Limited v. Continental Engines Ltd. [2017(165)DRJ533]

Relevant Paras –
2. Pursuant to the completion of pleadings plaintiffs witness PW-1 entered appearance
and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit. During the cross examination of PW-1
plaintiff filed affidavit of another witness without him being named in the list of
witnesses and along with the affidavit of PW-2 filed number of documents without
seeking leave of the Court. Hence learned counsel for the defendant objected to the
validity of the affidavit of PW-2 and the additional documents filed. Faced with this
situation plaintiff filed an application being IA No. 7107/2016 under Order XVIII Rule 4
CPC which was heard by the learned Joint Registrar and dismissed vide the impugned
order dated 7th September, 2016. Hence, the present appeal.
11. The case of the plaintiff is that there is no bar to placing such documents along with
the affidavit and no prejudice has been caused to the defendant, thus the document can be
taken on record. It is further stated that the witness who is producing the said documents
has dealt with the defendant and is in a position to prove the said documents. The
plaintiff/applicant has sought leave of the Court to place the documents along with
evidence of PW-2.
12. It is well-settled that procedure is the handmade of justice. It is undisputed that even
at this stage, a party can file documents but with the leave of the Court. The plaintiff
cannot be non-suited from filing the documents it seeks to rely upon even at this stage.
Though in the decision Nishant Hannan & Ors. v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation
this Court was dealing with unimpeachable documents, however the fact remains that
under Order VII Rule 14 CPC read with Section 151 CPC the plaintiff can file additional
documents with the leave of the Court when the plaintiffs evidence is going on. Provision
under Order VII Rule 14 CPC is essentially to assist parties and the Court in adjudication
of the dispute.

2. Sasanagouda v. S.B. Amarkhed and Ors. [AIR1992SC1163]

Relevant Para-
 7. The Court, therefore, is clearly empowered and it shall be lawful for it to Order the
production, by any party to the suit, such documents in his possession or power relate to
any matter in question in the suit provided the Court shall think right that the production
of the documents are necessary to decide the matter in question. The Court also has been
given power to deal with the documents when produced in such manner as shall appear
just. Therefore, the power to Order production of documents is coupled with discretion to
examine the expediency, justness and the relevancy of the documents to the matter in
question. These are relevant considerations which the Court shall have to advert to and
weigh before deciding to summoning the documents in possession of the party to the
election petition.

3. Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu vs. Union of India (UOI)
[AIR2005SC3353]
Relevant Para-
14. In Salem Advocates Bar Association's case, it has been clarified that on deletion of
Order XVIII Rule 17-A which provided for leading of additional evidence, the law
existing before the introduction of the amendment, i.e., 1st July, 2002, would stand
restored. The Rule was deleted by Amendment Act of 2002. Even before insertion of
Order XVIII Rule 17-A, the Court had inbuilt power to permit parties to produce
evidence not known to them earlier or which could not be produced in spite of due
diligence. Order XVIII Rule 17-A did not create any new right but only clarified the
position. Therefore, deletion of Order XVIII Rule 17-A does not disentitle production of
evidence at a later stage. On a party satisfying the Court that after exercise of due
diligence that evidence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced at the
time the party was leading evidence, the Court may permit leading of such evidence at a
later stage on such terms as may appear to be just.
EXHIBITION OF ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS

1. Shail Kumari v. Saraswati devi [96(2002)DLT131]

The case focused on the effect of marking of an exhibit on the document with respect to
Order 13 Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. It was ruled that the marking
of an exhibit would not form a part of the evidence - It could only be referred for
identifying the document
Relevant para-
24. The question of admissibility of the document has to be decided at the stage when the
document is formally tendered in evidence and proved. Deferring a decision on the
question of admissibility of the document and making it part of the evidence by marking
exhibit mark on it may lead to complication and in many cases result in grave injustice to
the party, who tenders the document. If the question of admissibility of the document and
making it part of the evidence by marking exhibit mark on it may lead to complication
and in many cases result in grave injustice to the party, who tenders the document. If the
question of admissibility of the document is deferred to be decided at the time of hearing
of final arguments in many cases a party may be deprived of an opportunity to cure a
curable defect or supply the deficiency.