ORDER
1. In a suit filed under Order XXXVII, C.P.C. for the recovery of Rs. 8,541.90 the plaintiff-petitioner prayed for the production of some cheques and specimen signatures card allegedly issued and signed by defendant No. 1. The application was rejected vide the order impugned herein mainly on the ground that as the plaintiff has failed to show any good ground for the non-production of documents at the earlier stage the prayer could not be allowed. It is submitted that the Court below has not exercised the jurisdiction properly requiring interference by this Court.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. Order XIII, Rule 1, C.P.C. provides that the parties or their pleaders shall produce at the first hearing of the suit, all the documentary evidence of every description in their possession or power, on which they intend to rely. Rule 2 of Order XIII, however, provides that no documentary evidence in possession or power of any party which should have been but has not been produced in accordance with the requirement of Rule 1 shall be received at any subsequent stage of the proceedings unless good cause is shown to the satisfaction of the Court for the non-production thereof and the Court receiving any such evidence shall record reasons for so doing. It is enjoined upon the parties to lay their documents before the Court at the earliest possible opportunity. The rule is peremptory necessitating for production of the documents at the first hearing. However, the object of the rule is not to penalise the parties and the Court has discretion under Rule 2 of Order XIII to receive any document at a later stage if there is no suspicion about the genuineness of the document. The plaintiff is required to produce and deliver into the Court all such documents upon which he sues along with the plaint in terms of Order VII, Rule 14, C.P.C. For other documents whether in his possession or power or not, the plaintiff is required at least to submit the list thereafter at the time of filing of the plaint, the plaintiff is not required to anticipate the defence of the defendant and is authorised to produce such further documents after the filing of the written statement but before framing of the issues in terms of Order XIII, C.P.C. Before permitting a party to produce document at a later stage, the erring party is required to submit a satisfactory explanation for its non-production at the first hearing. The rule is, however, required to be liberally construed so as to advance the cause of justice provided some plausible explanation is given by the erring party for non-production of the document at the earlier stage. No party can be allowed to produce documents at his option or pleasure without giving or assigning any sufficient cause.
4. This Court in Ali Malik v. Ali Bhat, AIR 1964 J & K 59, held that the words, “possession or power” in Rules 1 and 2 imply that the document in question must be in actual and physical possession or control of the party. The expression does not include a document over which the party has no control and which can be produced only through the intervention of the Court by calling a witness and asking him to produce the document. The Supreme Court in Madan Gopal Kanodia v. Mamraj Maniram, AIR 1976 SC 461, held (at page 462):
“Order 13, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not provide for any particular ritualistic formula in which the order of the Court has to be passed. The object of Order 13, Rule 2 is merely to prevent belated production of documents, so that it may not work injustice to the defendant. The provision clearly clothes the Court with discretion to allow production of documents, if it is satisfied that good cause is shown to its satisfaction ………..”
In Adalat Chowdhary v. Satan Choudhary, AIR 1984 Patna 223, it was held (at page 225):
“Under Order XIII, Rule 1 of the Code a party is entitled to produce all the documentary evidence on which he intends to rely,
at or before the settlement of issues: Under
Order XIII, Rule 2 of the Code, no documentary evidence in possession or power of
any party, which should have been but has not
been produced in accordance with the requirements of Rule I, can be received at a
subsequent stage unless good cause is shown
to the satisfaction of the Court for non-
production thereof. If the Court receives such
evidence under Rule 2, Order XIII of the Code, the
Court receiving such evidence shall, record
reasons for so doing. Thus, the effect, of
Rule 2 of the Code read with Rule 1 of
Order XIII of the Code is that even, if the
party did not produce any documentary evidence in possession or power, at or before the
settlement of issues it can be received at a later
stage provided good cause is shown to the
satisfaction of the Court.”
In Jagjit Cotton Textile Mills v. Union of India, AIR 1990 Raj 20, it was held (at page 22):
“Under Order 13, Rule 2(1) no documentary evidence can be received after the settlement of issue unless good cause is shown to the satisfaction of the Court for its non-production and reasons shall be recorded for receiving it. Under the facts and circumstances of a particular case, the Court has jurisdiction to hold rightly or wrongly that good cause to its satisfaction has been or has not been shown for the late production of a document. Such a decision has no relation to the question of jurisdiction of the Court. If the Court has failed to record any reason for receiving any document at a late stage, it may be said that it has acted with material irregularity in the exercise its jurisdiction. The provisions specifically require the recording of reasons by the Court while accepting a document. However, no reason is required to be recorded for not accepting a document at a later stage. In such a case, there is no question of exercise of jurisdiction with material irregularity. Against such an order revision is not maintainable.”
Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to AIR 1918 PC 11, 1983 SLJ 288 and AIR 1982 Punjab 51, to urge that the document, if admittedly not forged, can be produced at any later stage even without assigning any reason.
5. On the basis of various judgments referred to hereinabove and keeping in view the object and scheme of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Courts should not be very strict in allowing the production of document at a later stage provided the other side can be compensated and some good or plausible cause is shown by the erring party. In the absence of good cause, the Court would be justified in refusing to accept the document at a later stage particularly when it is likely to affect the opposite party adversely. The negligence or mistake of a counsel should not ordinarily be made a ground for refusing to admit a document. The document can also not be admitted as a matter of routine at any stage without assigning any reason.
6. In the instant case, it is not disputed that the document sought to be produced, was in possession of the plaintiff-petitioner and was not attached with the plaint when it was filed in the High Court on 12-6-1984. No list of documents appears to have been attached with the plaint in terms of Order XVII, Rule 14, C.P.C. Issues were framed in the case on 4-10-1988 and no effort was thereafter made for production of the document now sought to be produced. In the application filed by the plaintiff-bank seeking permission to produce the document at this belated stage, the only ground for non-production of the document at an earlier stage by the plaintiff is “that these cheques are original and are not forged documents and those are tight with the many bundles of the bank record.” It is not stated anywhere that even this alleged cause had prevented the plaintiff-bank from producing the document at the earlier stage. The trial Court has dealt with all aspects of the case and has on fact arrived at a conclusion that as the plaintiff has failed to show any reasonable or plausible cause, no permission can be granted at this belated stage for production and proof of the documents as prayed. There is no illegality or error of jurisdiction in the order impugned requiring any interference from this Court.
7. This petition is accordingly dismissed. Record of the trial Court shall be returned forthwith where learned counsel for the parties have been directed to appear or cause the appearance of their clients on 14th April, 1992.