LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a court can allow additional documents to be submitted in an ongoing eviction suit when those documents were initially filed but went missing during court transfers.
CASE TYPE: Civil (Eviction Suit)
Case Name: Marwari Relief Society vs. Amulya Kumar Singh
[Judgment Date]: 14 March 2019
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: 14 March 2019
Citation: 2019 INSC 243
Judges: Justice R. Banumathi and Justice R. Subhash Reddy
Can a court allow additional documents to be submitted in an ongoing eviction suit, especially when those documents were initially filed but went missing during court transfers? This was the core question before the Supreme Court of India in the case of Marwari Relief Society vs. Amulya Kumar Singh. The case revolved around an eviction suit filed by the Marwari Relief Society against Amulya Kumar Singh, a tenant, and the subsequent issue of whether certain missing documents could be admitted as evidence. The Supreme Court bench comprised Justice R. Banumathi and Justice R. Subhash Reddy.
Case Background
The Marwari Relief Society, a charitable institution, manages a health resort in Ranchi. They granted Amulya Kumar Singh a license to occupy a residential cottage starting August 4, 1982. Singh was required to pay monthly maintenance and other charges. The Society claimed that Singh failed to pay these charges, leading them to issue a legal notice on August 19, 1987, demanding payment of ₹20,900 and asking him to vacate the premises.
Following the notice, the Society filed an Eviction Title Suit No. 5 of 1991 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Ranchi. The suit was initially decreed ex-parte on September 24, 1992. However, this decree was later set aside, and the suit was restored. During the subsequent transfer of the case between different courts, some of the original documents filed with the plaint went missing.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| August 4, 1982 | Marwari Relief Society granted a license to Amulya Kumar Singh to occupy a residential cottage. |
| August 19, 1987 | Marwari Relief Society issued a legal notice to Amulya Kumar Singh for non-payment of dues and to vacate the premises. |
| 1991 | Marwari Relief Society filed Eviction Title Suit No. 5 of 1991 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Ranchi. |
| September 24, 1992 | The Trial Court decreed the suit ex-parte. |
| December 18, 1995 | The Trial Court dismissed Amulya Kumar Singh’s application to set aside the ex-parte decree. |
| Appellate Court | The Appellate Court allowed Amulya Kumar Singh’s appeal, setting aside the ex-parte decree and restoring the suit. |
| September 8, 2010 | The Trial Court allowed the Society’s application to file missing documents. |
| November 21, 2011 | The Trial Court allowed the Society’s application to file the original Power of Attorney. |
| April 24, 2018 | The High Court of Jharkhand set aside the Trial Court’s orders allowing additional documents. |
| March 14, 2019 | The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and allowed the additional documents. |
Course of Proceedings
The suit was initially decreed ex-parte by the Trial Court on September 24, 1992. The respondent, Amulya Kumar Singh, then filed an application to set aside the ex-parte decree, which was dismissed on December 18, 1995. Subsequently, the Appellate Court allowed the respondent’s appeal, setting aside the ex-parte decree and restoring the suit to its original number.
The suit was transferred between different courts (Sub-Judge Court No. V to Sub-Judge Court No. VII and back to Sub-Judge Court No. V). During these transfers, the original documents filed with the plaint were misplaced. The appellant-plaintiff then filed applications under Order VII Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) to file the missing documents, which were allowed by the Trial Court on September 8, 2010, and November 21, 2011. These orders were challenged by the respondent in a writ petition before the High Court of Jharkhand, which set aside the Trial Court’s orders. This decision of the High Court was then appealed before the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The primary legal provision at play in this case is Order VII Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). This provision allows a party to produce documents not initially listed in the plaint, with the permission of the court.
Order VII Rule 14(3) of the CPC states:
“A document which ought to be produced in Court by the plaintiff when the plaint is presented, or to be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint but is not so produced or entered accordingly, shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit.”
Arguments
The appellant-plaintiff, Marwari Relief Society, argued that the documents sought to be produced were not new but were the original documents filed with the plaint. They contended that these documents were misplaced during the transfer of the case between different courts. The appellant also argued that the verification of the plaint clearly stated that Ramnandan Prasad was the “constituted agent and attorney of the plaintiff,” and the Power of Attorney was not being introduced for the first time.
The respondent-defendant, Amulya Kumar Singh, argued that there were no averments in the plaint regarding the documents sought to be produced through the applications. They contended that the Power of Attorney was not mentioned in the plaint’s cause title, and therefore, the documents should not be admitted.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Appellant-Plaintiff (Marwari Relief Society) |
|
| Respondent-Defendant (Amulya Kumar Singh) |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:
- Whether the Trial Court was justified in allowing the appellant-plaintiff to file additional documents under Order VII Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the Trial Court was justified in allowing the appellant-plaintiff to file additional documents under Order VII Rule 14(3) of the CPC. | Yes | The Court noted that the plaint referred to the Agreement dated August 4, 1982, and the eviction notice dated August 19, 1987. The verification of the plaint stated that Ramnandan Prasad was the “constituted agent and attorney of the plaintiff,” which was sufficient to hold that the plaint was filed by a duly authorized agent. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following legal provision:
- Order VII Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): This provision deals with the production of documents not initially listed in the plaint, with the permission of the court.
Judgment
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Appellant-Plaintiff’s submission that the documents were not new but were originally filed with the plaint. | Accepted. The Court agreed that the documents were not being introduced for the first time and were misplaced during court transfers. |
| Appellant-Plaintiff’s submission that the plaint’s verification stated that Ramnandan Prasad was the “constituted agent and attorney of the plaintiff.” | Accepted. The Court held that the verification was sufficient to show that the plaint was filed by a duly authorized agent. |
| Respondent-Defendant’s submission that there were no averments in the plaint regarding the documents sought to be produced. | Rejected. The Court found that the plaint did refer to the Agreement and the eviction notice, and the verification was sufficient proof of authorization. |
| Respondent-Defendant’s submission that the Power of Attorney was not mentioned in the plaint’s cause title. | Rejected. The Court held that the verification was sufficient to show that the plaint was filed by a duly authorized agent. |
The Court considered Order VII Rule 14(3) of the CPC.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the factual context of the case and the procedural aspects of the suit. The Court emphasized that the documents in question were not new but were the original documents that were misplaced during court transfers. It also focused on the verification of the plaint, which clearly stated that Ramnandan Prasad was the “constituted agent and attorney of the plaintiff.” This indicated that the plaint was filed by a duly authorized person.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Factual Context (Misplaced Documents) | 60% |
| Procedural Compliance (Verification of Plaint) | 40% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
The Court reasoned that the High Court erred in not considering the averments made in the plaint and the verification of the plaint. The Court emphasized that the documents were not being introduced for the first time, and the verification was sufficient proof of authorization.
The Supreme Court quoted:
“In the impugned judgment, learned Single Judge has observed that except at the verification portion, there is no reference that Ramnandan Prasad is a “constituted agent and attorney of the plaintiff” and there are no averments in the plaint in respect of the documents sought to be produced through the applications dated 27th August, 2010 and 14th June, 2011.”
“Considering the averments made in the plaint, in our view learned Single Judge was not right in observing that there are no averments made in the plaint in respect of the documents sought to be produced through the said applications.”
“Though the cause-title of the plaint does not state that the appellant-Marwari Relief Society is represented through Ramnandan Prasad, however, the verification of the plaint clear states that Ramnandan Prasad is a “ constituted agent and attorney of the plaintiff ” which in our considered view is sufficient to hold that plaint has been filed by the power of attorney holder who is a duly “constituted agent”. “
Key Takeaways
- ✓ Courts can allow additional documents to be submitted if they were originally part of the plaint but were misplaced due to court transfers.
- ✓ The verification of a plaint can be considered sufficient proof of authorization if it states that the person verifying is a “constituted agent and attorney” of the plaintiff.
- ✓ It is essential to maintain proper documentation and ensure that all relevant documents are properly filed and accounted for during court proceedings.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the Trial Court to proceed with the suit pending before it and dispose of the same expeditiously, as the suit was of the year 1992.
Development of Law
The Supreme Court clarified that under Order VII Rule 14(3) of the CPC, additional documents can be admitted if they were part of the original plaint but were misplaced. The Court also emphasized that the verification of the plaint can be considered sufficient proof of authorization if it states that the person verifying is a “constituted agent and attorney” of the plaintiff. This decision reinforces the importance of proper documentation and verification in civil suits.
Conclusion
In the case of Marwari Relief Society vs. Amulya Kumar Singh, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and allowed the additional documents to be submitted. The Court held that the documents were not new and were misplaced during court transfers. The Court also emphasized that the verification of the plaint was sufficient proof of authorization. The Trial Court was directed to expedite the suit proceedings.