Find a Lawyer

Civil Revision No. 11 of 1974, decided on 5th December 1977.

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

--- 0. VIII, r. 4-Evasive pleading-Documents sought to be produced by petitioner (defendant) being in its possession and power, petitioner bound in duty to produce such documents along with its written statement-Vague reliance on all documents pertaining to the plaintiff", held, not sufficient to put plaintiff on notice thereof and did not satisfy provision of law-Trial Court, in circumstances, held further, rightly rejected petitioner's plea to admit disputed documents in evidence.-[Pleadings].

Ch. Moeen-ud-Din for Petitioner.

Habibullah for Respondent.

Dates of hearing : 31st October and 19th November, 1977.

The respondent filed a suit against the petitioner for recovery of Rs. 50,000 as damages. In the course of trial, the petitioner-defendant sought to produce certain documents in evidence but was disallowed by the trial Court. It is against the order of the trial Court precluding the petitioner from filing and proving those documents that this revision petition has been filed under section 115, C. P. C.

This is obviously not a case of exercise of jurisdiction not vesting in the Court or refusal to exercise at jurisdiction vesting to it. The learned counsel

for the petitioner, therefore, contends that the trial Court has acted illegally or with material irregularity.

2. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the documents in question were not mentioned in the list of reliance and no copies thereof were filed alongwith the written statement. Therefore, production of the documents at the late stage of evidence was disallowed. But the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that according to the list of reliance, the defendant had relied upon "the entire record pertaining to the plaintiff's case". This, according to him, gives the defendant a right to produce all relevant documents from the official record relating to the plaintiff.

3. The relevant provision of law is Rule 1 of Order VIII of the C. P. C. which alongwith the local amendment reads as follows :

"The defendant may, and, if so required by the Court, shall, at or before the first hearing or within such time as the Court may permit, present a written statement of his defence and with such written statement, or if there is no written statement, at the first hearing shall produce in Court all documents in his possession or power on which he bases his defence or any claim for set-off."

It is evident in this case that the documents sought to be produced by the petitioner were undoubtedly in its possession and power. It was therefore, the duty of the petitioner-defendant to produce those documents along with the written statement. A vague reliance on "all documents pertaining to the plaintiff" was not sufficient to put the plaintiff on notice thereof and A did not satisfy the provision of law either in letter or spirit.

4. In my opinion, therefore, the learned trial Court rightly rejected the petitioner's plea to admit the disputed documents in evidence.

5. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. The costs shall abide the final result of the cause.

s. A. H. Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.