Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, legal heirs of the original deceased defendant no.1 in Special Civil Suit No.222/2009, challenged the trial court's order dated 29.07.2019 allowing the plaintiff's application (exhibit 90) to produce one office copy and three original documents, including a Power of Attorney, at a belated stage. The petitioners argued that foundational pleadings regarding the Power of Attorney were necessary before its production, and that the plaintiff had not pleaded the document in the plaint. The respondent/plaintiff contended that the Power of Attorney was executed by defendant no.2 in his favor and was relevant to the suit. The High Court examined whether the trial court's order suffered from any jurisdictional error or perversity. It noted that the trial court had imposed costs of Rs.2500 on the plaintiff, which was a condition for allowing the production. The court held that the trial court had exercised its discretion under Order 13 Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC, and the order was not illegal or perverse. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the trial court's order with the condition that the plaintiff must pay the costs before producing the documents. The court also observed that the petitioners could raise objections regarding the admissibility and evidentiary value of the documents at the trial.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Power of Attorney - Foundational Pleadings - Order 8 Rule 1A, Order 13 Rule 1, Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The court considered whether foundational pleadings are necessary for belated production of a Power of Attorney. The plaintiff sought to produce a Power of Attorney at a belated stage without prior pleadings. The court held that while foundational pleadings are generally required, the trial court's discretion to allow production with costs was not perverse or illegal, and the order was upheld. (Paras 1-10) B) Civil Procedure - Belated Production of Documents - Costs - Order 13 Rule 1, Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The trial court allowed the plaintiff's application to produce documents (including a Power of Attorney) at a belated stage, imposing costs of Rs.2500. The High Court found no jurisdictional error or perversity, as the trial court had exercised discretion judiciously. The writ petition was dismissed. (Paras 4-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether foundational pleadings regarding a vital document like 'Power of Attorney' are necessary for placing reliance upon and for production at a belated stage?
Final Decision
Writ petition dismissed. Trial court order dated 29.07.2019 upheld. Plaintiff to pay costs of Rs.2500 before producing documents.
Law Points
- Foundational pleadings necessary for reliance on Power of Attorney
- Belated production of documents allowed with costs
- Order 8 Rule 1A CPC
- Order 13 Rule 1 CPC
- Section 151 CPC
