Supreme Court Allows Additional Documents in Civil Suit: Sugandhi vs. P. Rajkumar (2020)

Date of the Judgment: October 13, 2020

Citation: 2020 INSC 727

Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Abdul Nazeer and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjiv Khanna

Can a defendant in a civil suit be allowed to present additional documents after the initial filing of their written statement? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case, focusing on the balance between procedural rules and the pursuit of justice. This case examines the interpretation of Order 8 Rule 1A(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), which governs the production of documents by defendants. The core issue was whether the High Court of Judicature at Madras, Madurai Bench, correctly upheld the trial court’s decision to disallow the defendants from producing additional documents at a later stage of the suit. The judgment was delivered by a division bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Abdul Nazeer and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjiv Khanna.

Case Background

The case originated from a suit filed by the respondent, P. Rajkumar, against the appellants, Sugandhi (dead) by Lrs. & Anr., in the Principal Sub-Judge, Pudukottai, as O.S. No. 257 of 2014. The respondent, the plaintiff in the suit, sought an injunction against the appellants, the defendants, alleging that they were attempting to illegally take possession of the suit property. The appellants contested the claim. During the course of the suit, when the matter was scheduled for the defendants’ evidence, they filed an application seeking permission to produce additional documents. They claimed that these documents were recently discovered and were crucial to their defense, which is why they were not submitted with the written statement.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court dismissed the application of the defendants seeking to produce additional documents vide order dated 11th October, 2018. The defendants then filed a revision petition before the High Court of Judicature at Madras, Madurai Bench, challenging the order of the Trial Court. The High Court also dismissed the revision petition by its order dated 19.02.2019, upholding the decision of the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the order of the High Court, the defendants appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The core of this case revolves around Order 8 Rule 1A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), which outlines the procedure for producing documents in a civil suit. Specifically, sub-rule (3) states:

“A document which ought to be produced in Court by the defendant under this rule, but, is not so produced shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit.”

This provision mandates that defendants should produce all relevant documents along with their written statement. However, it also provides a window for producing documents later with the court’s permission. The Supreme Court also considered Rule 1 of Order 13 of the CPC, which requires parties to produce original documents before the settlement of issues.

Arguments

Appellants’ (Defendants’) Arguments:

• The appellants argued that the documents they sought to produce were crucial for a just determination of the case.
• They contended that due to unavoidable circumstances, they could not produce these documents along with their written statement. They stated that the documents were missing and were traced only at a later stage.
• They argued that rejecting their application on technical grounds would cause prejudice to them and that the production of these documents would not prejudice the plaintiff.

Respondent’s (Plaintiff’s) Arguments:

• The respondent argued that the defendants did not have a right to produce documents at this stage, especially after the plaintiff had concluded their evidence.
• The respondent supported the orders of the lower courts, asserting that the defendants failed to comply with the procedural requirements of producing documents with the written statement.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

1. Whether the High Court was correct in dismissing the revision petition filed by the appellants challenging the refusal to entertain an application under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking leave of the court to produce additional documents.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Order 8 Rule 1A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which specifies the procedure for producing documents by the defendant.
• Order 13 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which mandates the parties to produce their original documents before settlement of issues.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court interpreted Order 8 Rule 1A(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908* as providing a second opportunity to the defendant to produce documents with the leave of the court and held that the discretion conferred upon the court to grant such leave is to be exercised judiciously.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court emphasized that procedural rules should not hinder the pursuit of justice. The court noted that the defendants had provided a reasonable explanation for not producing the documents earlier, and that these documents were necessary for a just decision. The court also highlighted that allowing the production of documents would not cause any prejudice to the plaintiff. The court’s focus was on ensuring a fair trial and that all relevant evidence was considered.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court reasoned that the procedural requirement to produce documents with the written statement is not absolute. It emphasized that the court has the discretion to allow the production of documents at a later stage if a good cause is shown. The Court observed that the defendants had provided a reasonable explanation for not producing the documents earlier, and that these documents were necessary for a just decision. The Court also noted that allowing the production of documents would not cause any prejudice to the plaintiff. The Court held that the procedural and technical hurdles should not come in the way of doing substantial justice.

The Supreme Court’s decision was unanimous, with both judges concurring on the judgment. There were no dissenting opinions.

“It is often said that procedure is the handmaid of justice. Procedural and technical hurdles shall not be allowed to come in the way of the court while doing substantial justice.”

“If the procedural violation does not seriously cause prejudice to the adversary party, courts must lean towards doing substantial justice rather than relying upon procedural and technical violation.”

“Therefore, the court should take a lenient view when an application is made for production of the documents under sub-rule (3).”

Key Takeaways

• Courts should adopt a lenient approach when considering applications for the production of additional documents under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) of the CPC.
• Procedural rules should not be strictly enforced if they hinder the pursuit of substantial justice.
• The discretion to allow additional documents should be exercised judiciously, considering the reasons for the delay and the necessity of the documents.
• The focus should be on ensuring a fair trial where all relevant evidence is considered.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the High Court and the Trial Court. The application (I.A. No.551 of 2018 in O.S. NO.257 of 2014) filed by the appellants-defendants before the Principal Sub-Judge, Pudukottai, was allowed. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the courts should take a lenient view when an application is made for production of documents under sub-rule (3) of Order 8 Rule 1A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and that procedural and technical hurdles shall not be allowed to come in the way of the court while doing substantial justice. This judgment reinforces the principle that procedural rules should not be used to deny justice, and that courts should prioritize the discovery of truth in every dispute.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Sugandhi (dead) by Lrs. & Anr. vs. P. Rajkumar underscores the importance of balancing procedural rules with the need for substantial justice. By allowing the defendants to produce additional documents, the court emphasized that procedural technicalities should not prevent the presentation of crucial evidence. This ruling reinforces the principle that courts should prioritize the discovery of truth and ensure that all relevant facts are considered in a fair trial.