Even After Deletion Of Order XVIII Rule 17A CPC Documentary Evidence May Be Produced At Later Stage Of Suit Showing Sufficient Ground For Not Producing Earlier: Jharkhand HC Reiterates

The Court said that even after the deletion of the provision under Order XVIII Rule 17A of the CPC, the parties may adduce the evidence at a later stage of suit showing the sufficient ground not producing them at the time of filing the suit or at the time of filing written statement.

The Court was hearing a Writ Petition filed against the order in a Title Suit where the petitioner’s petition under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) C.P.C. for a grant of leave to produce the documents was rejected.

The bench of Justice Subhash Chand observed, “if the documentary evidence was not filed at the time of written statement despite due diligence, the same may be taken on record at subsequent stage if those documents are necessary for the adjudication of the issues between the parties.”

Advocate Arun Kumar appeared for the Appellant and Advocate Sandeep Verma appeared for the Respondent.

In the present case, the Petitioner submitted that the plaintiff filed a Title Suit against the defendants to declare several deeds and mutation cases null and void. A defendant who is the petitioner here, filed a written statement and later sought to introduce additional documents not initially filed. The Trial Court rejected the application stating that the defendant failed to explain why these documents were not presented earlier.

The Court noted that the defendant provided a reason for not producing the documents with the written statement in his application which was not disputed by the plaintiff.

The Court mentioned the decision of the Supreme Court in Salem Advocate Bar Association Tamil Nadu vs Union of India reported in AIR 2005 SC 3353 and quoted, “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.”

Accordingly, the Court said that the impugned judgment needed interference and allowed the Writ Petition.

The Court allowed the application of the defendant regarding adducing the documentary evidence which is sought to be produced by the defendants.

Finally, the Court disposed of the Writ Petition.