Case Note & Summary
The petitioners filed a suit claiming ownership of a property and sought to produce additional documents under Order 7 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The documents were in Portuguese language and were old, which the petitioners claimed they were unable to understand at the time of filing the suit. The Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa, rejected the application on 12.09.2012, observing that the documents could be manufactured. The petitioners challenged this order by way of a writ petition before the Bombay High Court at Goa. The High Court noted that the documents sought to be produced were public documents and material for deciding the dispute. The court held that the trial court's suspicion that the documents could be manufactured was not supported by any evidence and that the court ought to have allowed the application. The High Court set aside the impugned order and directed the trial court to permit the petitioners to produce the documents, subject to the respondents' right to challenge their genuineness. The court also directed the trial court to expedite the disposal of the suit.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Order 7 Rule 14 - Production of Additional Documents - Public Documents - The court held that documents which are public documents cannot be rejected on the ground that they could be manufactured, in the absence of any evidence to support such suspicion. The court must adopt a liberal approach in allowing production of documents that are material for deciding the controversy. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Civil Judge was justified in rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC to produce additional documents on the ground that they could be manufactured, without any evidence to support such suspicion.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order dated 12.09.2012, and directed the trial court to permit the petitioners to produce the documents, subject to the respondents' right to challenge their genuineness. The trial court was also directed to expedite the disposal of the suit.
Law Points
- Order 7 Rule 14 CPC
- Public documents
- Production of additional documents
- Rejection of documents on suspicion of being manufactured
- Liberal approach in allowing documents
Case Details
WRIT PETITION NO. 678 OF 2012
Shri A. D. Bhobe for Petitioners, Shri J. P. Mulgaonkar for Respondent no.1
Mrs. Natalin Araujo Fernandes (since deceased), Mr. Inacio J. M. D' Souza, Mrs. Matilda D' Souza, Mrs. Angelina Pereira, Mr. Francis Pereira
Mr. Etelvina Monteiro, Mr. Joseph Francis Calistis Monteiro
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging an order rejecting an application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC to produce additional documents in a civil suit.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought to set aside the order dated 12.09.2012 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa, and to allow them to produce additional documents.
Filing Reason
The trial court rejected the petitioners' application to produce additional documents on the ground that the documents could be manufactured.
Previous Decisions
The Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa, by order dated 12.09.2012, rejected the application filed by the petitioners under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC.
Issues
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC on the ground that the documents could be manufactured.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the documents sought to be produced are public documents and material for deciding the controversy, and the trial court erred in rejecting the application on suspicion of being manufactured.
Respondent no.1 opposed the petition, but the judgment does not detail the respondent's arguments.
Ratio Decidendi
Public documents cannot be rejected on the ground that they could be manufactured, in the absence of any evidence to support such suspicion. The court must adopt a liberal approach in allowing production of documents that are material for deciding the controversy.
Judgment Excerpts
The documents which are sought to be produced are public documents and, according to him, the learned Judge was not justified to come to the conclusion that such documents could be manufactured.
The documents which are sought to be produced are material to consider the dispute in controversy.
Procedural History
The petitioners filed a civil suit claiming ownership of a property. During the pendency of the suit, they filed an application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC to produce additional documents. The Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa, rejected the application on 12.09.2012. The petitioners challenged this order by filing the present writ petition before the High Court of Bombay at Goa.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 7 Rule 14
