Supreme Court Allows Production of Additional Maps in Assam-Nagaland Border Dispute: State of Assam vs. Union of India (20 July 2018)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 20 July 2018

Citation: Not Available

Judges: Dipak Misra, CJI, A.M. Khanwilkar, J, Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J

Can a party in a legal dispute introduce additional evidence mid-trial? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning a long-standing border dispute between the states of Assam and Nagaland. The core issue was whether the State of Assam could produce additional topographical maps during the recording of evidence. The court, in this judgment, permitted the production of the maps, emphasizing the importance of allowing all relevant evidence to be presented in the interest of justice. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench consisting of the Chief Justice of India, Dipak Misra, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, and Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, with the opinion authored by Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud.

Case Background

The State of Assam and the State of Nagaland are engaged in a long-standing boundary dispute, which is the subject matter of the original suit before the Supreme Court of India. During the recording of evidence of a witness from the Survey of India, the State of Assam sought to introduce additional topographical maps. Initially, the court had allowed the production of certain maps on 2 July 2015. However, the State of Assam later realized that some more maps, maintained at the Head Office of the Survey of India in Dehradun, were necessary for the case. These maps were not in the possession of or under the control of the State of Assam. During the examination of the witness, the State of Assam requested the production of these additional maps through letters dated 24 February 2017, 7 March 2017, and 6 April 2017. The witness from the Survey of India agreed to produce the maps on 18 July 2017. However, the State of Nagaland objected to this, stating that since the court had already granted leave for the production of documents, no additional documents could be produced at this stage. This objection led to the State of Assam filing an application for the production of the additional maps.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, specifically Order XI Rule 14 and Order VII Rule 14, which deal with the production of documents.

Order XI Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 states:

“14. Production of documents — It shall be lawful for the Court, at any time during the pendency of any suit, to order the production by any party thereto, upon oath of such of the documents in his possession or power, relating to any matter in question in such suit, as the Court shall think right; and the Court may deal with such documents, when produced, in such manner as shall appear just.”

This provision allows the court to order the production of documents by any party during the pendency of a suit.

Order VII Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 states:

“Production of document on which plaintiff sues or relies
(1) Where a plaintiff sues upon a document or relies upon document in
his possession or power in support of his claim, he shall enter such
documents in a list, and shall produce it in Court when the plaint is
presented by him and shall, at the same time deliver the document and
a copy thereof, to be filed with the plaint.
(2) Where any such document is not in the possession or power of the
plaintiff, he shall, wh erever possible, state in whose possession or
power it is.
(3) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the plaintiff
when the plaint is 1presented, or to be entered in the list to be added
or annexed to the plaint but is not 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.
(4) Nothing in this rule shall apply to document produced for the cross
examination of the plaintiff’s witnesses, or, handed over to a witness
merely to refresh his memory. ”

This rule specifies the procedure for producing documents when a plaintiff relies on them to support their claim. It also states that documents not produced at the time of filing the plaint cannot be received in evidence without the court’s leave.

Arguments

The State of Assam argued that the additional maps were crucial for the case and were not in their possession or control. They contended that the maps were maintained at the Head Office of the Survey of India in Dehradun. They submitted that during the recording of evidence, the need for these maps became apparent, and they had requested their production through official letters.

The State of Nagaland objected to the production of additional maps, arguing that the court had already granted leave for the production of documents. They contended that allowing the production of additional documents at this stage would be against the established procedure.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the State of Assam could be allowed to produce additional topographical maps during the ongoing recording of evidence, despite the court having previously granted leave for the production of documents.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Order XI Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: This provision allows the court to order the production of documents by any party during the pendency of a suit.
• Order VII Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: This rule specifies the procedure for producing documents when a plaintiff relies on them to support their claim.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

✓ The Court relied on Order XI Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908* to allow the production of additional documents, emphasizing the court’s power to order document production at any stage of a suit.

✓ The Court considered Order VII Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908* but noted that it did not preclude the production of documents at a later stage with the court’s leave.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to allow the production of additional maps was primarily driven by the principle of ensuring a fair and just trial. The Court emphasized that all relevant evidence should be considered to arrive at a proper adjudication of the dispute. The need to consider the maps which were not in the possession of the applicant was also a major factor. The court also clarified that the earlier order of the court did not preclude the State of Assam from seeking production at this stage.

The court’s decision was influenced by a combination of factual considerations (the need for the maps, their unavailability with the applicant) and legal considerations (the court’s power to order document production, the interpretation of the rules of procedure).

The court’s reasoning can be summarized as follows:

• The court has the power to order the production of documents at any stage of the suit under Order XI Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
• The maps were not in the possession or control of the State of Assam.
• The need for the maps became apparent during the recording of evidence.
• The earlier order of the court did not preclude the State of Assam from seeking production at this stage.
• The production of the maps was necessary in the interest of justice.

The court clarified that it was not dealing with the relevance or admissibility of the documents at this stage. It was left open to the State of Nagaland to raise such objections as they deemed fit and all appropriate defences.

The court stated, “The documents were not in the possession of the applicant and the earlier order of this Court will not preclude the State of Assam from seeking production at this stage.”

The court further clarified, “We, however, clarify that we have not dealt with the relevance or admissibility of the documents. It would be open to the State of Nagaland to raise such objections as it is advised to raise and all appropriate defences.”

The court allowed the production of maps stating, “Production of the above documents by the witness for the Survey of India should, in our view, be allowed in the interest of justice.”

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court has the power to order the production of documents at any stage of a suit under Order XI Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
• The court will allow the production of additional documents if they are deemed necessary for the interest of justice.
• Prior orders regarding document production do not necessarily preclude the production of additional documents at a later stage.
• The court will not deal with the relevance or admissibility of the documents at the stage of allowing production.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the witness from the Survey of India to produce the additional topographical maps as requested by the State of Assam. The Court also clarified that it was open to the State of Nagaland to raise objections regarding the relevance and admissibility of the documents at a later stage.

Development of Law

The judgment clarifies that the court’s power to order the production of documents under Order XI Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 can be exercised at any stage of the suit, even if prior orders regarding document production have been made. This reaffirms the court’s commitment to ensuring that all relevant evidence is considered in the interest of justice. There is no change in the previous position of law, rather the court reiterated the same.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the State of Assam to produce additional topographical maps during the ongoing recording of evidence in the border dispute case with Nagaland. The court emphasized that the production of these maps was necessary in the interest of justice and that the previous order of the court did not preclude the State of Assam from seeking production at this stage. The court clarified that it was not dealing with the relevance or admissibility of the documents and that the State of Nagaland was free to raise objections at a later stage.