Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Smt. Chitrakala Fal Dessai, was the original plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No. 25/98 pending before the Civil Judge Junior Division, Canacona. She filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 30th September 2002 by which her application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) was rejected. The suit was filed on 24th September 1997 seeking a declaration that she was the owner of the suit property. In the suit, she applied to produce certain documents mentioned in paragraph 5 of the application, which she claimed were necessary for adjudication of the real controversy. She stated that she had misplaced the documents and could not produce them earlier. The defendant opposed the application, arguing that the plaintiff had not explained when the documents were misplaced or who had possession of them. The trial court rejected the application on the ground that the suit was filed in 1998 and the plaintiff had not shown sufficient cause for non-production earlier, also noting that the plaintiff had relied on these documents in another suit, making her statement of misplacement false. The High Court considered the submissions. The petitioner's counsel argued that the requirement of showing sufficient cause had been deleted by amendment, and the court should allow production in the interest of justice, relying on Ramnath Nandlal Dhoot & Co. v. B.R. Shroti (AIR 1980 Bombay 387). The respondent's counsel contended that the attempt was belated and no acceptable reasons were given. The High Court observed that most of the documents were public documents, except two. Referring to Vencu Gopal Tari v. Nilconta S. Xete (AIR 1975 Goa, Daman & Diu 32), the court held that public documents can be produced at any stage and the court should not refuse their production on technical grounds. The court noted that the trial court's reasoning that the plaintiff had not shown sufficient cause was erroneous because the amended Order 7 Rule 14(3) does not require such cause. The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order, and directed the trial court to permit the petitioner to produce the documents, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 500 to the respondent.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Production of Documents - Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC - Liberal Construction - The court held that the requirement of showing sufficient cause for late production of documents has been deleted by amendment, and the court should adopt a liberal approach to allow production of documents, especially public documents, to ensure proper adjudication of the real controversy. (Paras 7-8) B) Civil Procedure - Public Documents - Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC - The court distinguished between public documents and private documents, noting that public documents can be produced at any stage and the court should not refuse their production on technical grounds. (Para 7) C) Civil Procedure - Sufficient Cause - Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC - The court observed that the trial court's finding that the plaintiff had not shown sufficient cause was erroneous because the amended provision does not require such cause, and the documents were necessary for deciding the real controversy. (Paras 7-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the plaintiff's application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) r/w Section 151 CPC for production of documents, primarily public documents, on the ground of insufficient cause for delay.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order dated 30th September 2002, and directed the trial court to permit the petitioner to produce the documents mentioned in the application, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 500 to the respondent.
Law Points
- Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC
- Section 151 CPC
- production of documents
- public documents
- sufficient cause
- liberal construction
