Supreme Court: Under which circumstances Session Judge can permit production of additional documents by prosecution after filing of chargesheet?

 From the aforesaid sub-sections, it is apparent that normally, the investigating Officer is required to produce all the relevant documents at the time of submitting the charge-sheet. At the same time, as there is no specific prohibition, it cannot be held that the additional documents cannot be produced subsequently. If some mistake is committed in not producing the relevant documents at the time of submitting the report or charge-sheet, it is always open to the Investigating Officer to produce the same with the permission of the Court. In our view, considering the preliminary stage of prosecution and the context in which Police Officer is required to forward to the Magistrate all the documents or the relevant extracts thereof on which prosecution proposes to rely, the word 'shall' used in Sub-section (5) cannot be interpreted as mandatory, but as directory. Normally, the documents gathered during the investigation upon which the prosecution wants to rely are required to be forwarded to the Magistrate, but if there is some omission, it would not mean that the remaining documents cannot be produced subsequently. Analogous provision under Section 173(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 was considered by this Court in Narayan Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh   MANU/SC/0042/1957 : 1957CriLJ1320 and it was held that the word 'shall' occurring in Sub-section 4 of Section 173 and Sub-section3 of Section 207A is not mandatory but only directory. Further, the scheme of Sub-section (8) of Section 173 also makes it abundantly clear that even after the charge-sheet is submitted, further investigation, if called for, is not precluded. If further investigation is not precluded then there is no question of not permitting the prosecution to produce additional documents which were gathered prior to or subsequent to investigation. In such cases, there can not be any prejudice to the accused. Hence, the impugned order passed by the Special Court cannot be sustained. {Para 7}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Appeal (crl.) 1045 of 2000

Decided On: 03.04.2002

Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Vs. R.S. Pai and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

M.B. Shah, Brijesh Kumar and D.M. Dharmadhikari, JJ.

Author: M.B. Shah, J.

Citation: MANU / SC / 0246 / 2002,AIR 2002 SC 1644,( 2002 ) 5 SCC 82.

Print Page

Whether appellate court can reject application for filing of additional documents at initial stage?

 A perusal of the order passed by the first Appellate Court on 4th November, 2016 on the application filed by the defendant no. 2 under Order 41 Rule 27 indicates that the said application is rejected on the ground that the defendant no. 2 had not exercised due diligence and had not satisfied the conditions prescribed under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The fact remains that the Appellate Court rejected the said application at the threshold and not while hearing the appeal filed by the defendant no. 2 finally. The Supreme Court in case of Union of India vs. Ibrahim Uddin and another (supra) has considered this issue and has held that the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 has to be decided at the stage of final hearing and at that stage, if the Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that the case under Order 41 Rule 27 of Code of Civil Procedure was made out, the appeal court permit the appellant to produce the additional evidence documents. In my view, the order passed by the Appellate Court on 4th November, 2016 rejecting the application filed by the defendant no. 2 under Order 41 Rule 27 at the threshold is contrary to the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in case of Union of India vs. Ibrahim Uddin and another (supra) and thus deserves to be set aside.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Second Appeal No. 267 of 2018 and Civil Application No. 592 of 2018 in Second Appeal No. 267 of 2018

Decided On: 16.08.2019

Rajkumar Chaganlal Shah Vs.  Gunmala Chandrakant Shah and Ors.

Print Page

Whether court can permit re-opening of evidence for receiving additional documents if those document relates to period subsequent to filing of suit?

 In this regard, the learned 

counsel also relied upon the judgment in P.Chinnadurai vs K.S. Subramaniam 

2015(1) MWM (Civil) 159, wherein the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in 

Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar vs. Sharad Chand Prabhakar Gogate, 2009 (4) MLJ 288 

(SC) and Bagai Constructions vs. Gupta Building Material Store, 2013 (1) MWN 

(Civil) 573 were relied upon for the proposition that the Court cannot permit 

parties to fill up the lacunae in the evidence of witnesses by relying upon 

Order 18 Rule 17 C.P.C.

14. As regards the other documents, the trial Court concluded that 

document no.9, namely, the death certificate of Mariyayee is not relevant 

because the death or the date of death is not disputed.  Likewise, as regards 

document nos.10 to 14, the trial Court concluded that the said documents 

relate to the period subsequent to the filing of the suit and, therefore, 

cannot be relied upon to establish the suit claim. I find no infirmity or 

material irregularity in the findings or conclusions of the trial Court. 

Accordingly, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order.

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DELIVERED ON: 19.07.2019 

CORAM :

 MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY   

C.R.P.(PD)(MD)Nos.2234 to 2236 of 2014

and

M.P.(MD) Nos.1 of 2014 and 1 of 2015

K.Ganesan vs.   Alamelu

Citation: AIR 2020(NOC) 28 Mad

Print Page

Whether court can allow production of documents if there is no pleading in respect of that document in plaint?

Says the Supreme Court, that it would be proper to encourage the belief in litigants that the imperative of Order 8, Rule 1, must be adhered to and that only in rare and exceptional cases, will the breach thereof will be condoned. The provisions of Sub-rule (3), of Rule 14, of Order 7 is an exception to the provisions of Sub-rule (1), of Rule 14, of Order 7 and Sub-rule (1), of Rule 1 of Order XIII. The provision of Sub-rule (3), of Rule 14, cannot be followed as a rule. In my humble view Order 13, Rule1, as well as Order 7, Rule 14, Sub-rule (1) and (3) are required to be read together harmoniously so that Rule 14(1), of Order 7, and, Rule 1, of Order 13, are not rendered nugatory. Reading together, what leads one to the conclusion is that if the plaintiff applies for seeking for leave to produce documents to be received in evidence at the hearing of the suit which documents were not produced on or before settlement of issue or at the time of production of the plaint, the Court will have to exercise sound discretion having regard to facts and circumstances of each case. True, mere non mention of the documents in the plaint does not affect the power of the Court to grant leave to produce the document/s at the subsequent stage. Leave of the Court is condition precedent under Sub-rule (3), of Rule 14, of Order 7 read with Sub-rule (1), of Order 13. Order 7, Rule 14(3) being an exception under Order 7 Rule 14(1) as well as Order 13, Rule 1(1) the powers to grant leave have got to be exercised in rare cases and not in a routine manner, and, that in my view would be correct position of law in the matter of granting leave.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

Writ Petition No. 418/2010

Decided On: 02.07.2010

Vitorino Rodrigues and Ors. Vs.  Smt. Nirmalabai Shivajirao Dessai (deceased) through L.R's and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

N.A. Britto, J.

Citation: 2010 (6) ALLMR 208

Print Page

What are necessary conditions for allowing production of documents during recording of evidence?

 It cannot be disputed that in terms of Order VII, Rule 14 of the Code, where a plaintiff sues upon a document in his possession or power in support of his claim, he shall enter such document 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. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 14 thereof clearly provides that 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 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. Sub-rule (4) thereof provides that nothing in the said rule shall apply to document produced for the cross-examination of the plaintiffs witnesses, or, handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory. Similar is the provision under the Sub-clause (3) of Rule 1 of the Order XIII of the Code. Being so, it cannot be disputed that if the plaintiff fails to mention the documents in the list annexed to the plaint and to place on record a copy of such document, which is required to be produced under the law at the time of filing of the plaint, the plaintiff is not entitled to produce any additional document thereafter, without the leave of the Court. The contention of the learned advocate for the petitioner, however, is that such leave has necessarily to be obtained prior to the documents being placed on record. The contention cannot be found fault with. But, at the same time, it is also to be noted that nothing prevents the Court in its discretion to grant leave subsequent to the documents being produced before the Court even though such documents were not entered in the list annexed to the plaint. It would depend upon the facts of each case. Undoubtedly, the order of the Court in that regard will have to be a speaking and reasoned order. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

W.P. No. 7022 of 2006

Decided On: 20.10.2006

 Mohanraj Rupchand Jain alias Chhajed Vs.  Kewalchand Hastimal Jain and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges: 

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.

Citation: AIR 2007 Bom 69

Print Page

When court should permit production of additional evidence?

In these circumstances, insofar as this appeal is concerned we are only concerned with the prayer of the Appellant to produce on record the document (Exhibit 34) as an additional document. The Appellant has stated that this document would reflect on the bona fide of the Respondent in filing the petition for fixation of standard rent which is a relevant consideration as per the judgment of the Bombay High Court itself in the case of Yeshbai Gangadhar Pathak v. Ganpat Irappa Jangam MANU/MH/0159/1975 : AIR 1975 Bom 20.

6. We find that the courts below have dismissed the application of the Appellant Under Order XLI, Rule 27 Code of Civil Procedure and refused to take the aforesaid document on record on the ground that the same is irrelevant for fixation of the quantum of standard rent. That may not be correct. In any case it can be examined at the stage of trial. At this stage some document is produced and we find that this document may have a bearing relevant for deciding the controversy between the parties and all the requisites of Order XLI, Rule 27 Code of Civil Procedure stand satisfied inasmuch as this document was not in the possession of the Appellant at the time of trial of the petition and came to the notice of the Appellant at the stage of the pendency of the revision petition.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 5609 of 2017 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 12336 of 2017

Decided On: 26.04.2017

 Satyavati Ramprasad Ruia Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
A.K. Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, JJ.

Citation: AIR 2017 SC 2596

Print Page

When court should not permit production of additional documents?

 Again, independently of what the Learned Single Judge or the Appeal Court has held/observed, I am of the view that the internal documents/correspondence exchanged by and between the official of RIL cannot be of any assistance to RIL in establishing what is alleged by it and recorded in paragraph 6.4 above. The question before the Court is whether there was a concluded contract between NTPC and RIL. This question is essentially a matter of interpretation of the terms of bargain which are reflected in writings executed by the parties. Terms of bargain are a bilateral matter and have to be ascertained from the language employed in the writings themselves. When the language employed is certain and clear, the meaning must be gathered from it alone. Only if there is any ambiguity in the language employed, the Court is free to invoke other external aids including the conduct of the parties to ascertain the meaning. But the endeavour is to find out what both parties together meant or understood by the terms of the bargain. An internal document of a party unilaterally prepared and not shared with the other, cannot possibly throw any light on what the parties together meant. It has, thus, no relevance for establishing or proving the existence or otherwise of a concluded contract. Therefore, apart from the fact that RIL has failed to show any case for nondisclosure of documents, I am of the view that the documents with regard to which leave is sought from this Court for being produced at this stage are not relevant for deciding the present suit.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Chamber Summons No. 629 of 2015 in Suit No. 95 of 2006

Decided On: 29.01.2016

 NTPC Ltd.

Vs.

Reliance Industries Ltd.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.J. Kathawalla, J.

Citation: 2017(1) ALLMR 331

Print Page

Whether court should permit production of additional documents when case was put for pronouncement of judgment?

The perusal of the materials placed by the plaintiff which are intended to be marked as bills have already been mentioned by the plaintiff in its statement of account but the original bills have not been placed on record by the plaintiff till the date of filing of such application. It is further seen that during the entire trial, those documents have remained in exclusive possession of the plaintiff but for the reasons known to it, still the plaintiff has not placed these bills on record. In such circumstance, as rightly observed by the trial Court at this belated stage and that too after the conclusion of the evidence and final arguments and after reserving the matter for pronouncement of judgment, we are of the view that the plaintiff cannot be permitted to file such applications to fill the lacunae in its pleadings and evidence led by him. As rightly observed by the trial Court, there is no acceptable reason or cause which has been shown by the plaintiff as to why these documents were not placed on record by the plaintiff during the entire trial. Unfortunately, the High Court taking note of the words “at any stage” occurring in Order XVIII Rule 17 casually set aside the order of the trial Court, allowed those applications and permitted the plaintiff to place on record certain bills and also granted permission to recall PW-1 to prove those bills. Though power under Section 151 can be exercised if ends of justice so warrant and to prevent abuse of process of the court and Court can exercise its discretion to permit reopening of evidence or recalling of witness for further examination/cross-examination after evidence led by the parties, in the light of the information as shown in the order of the trial Court, namely, those documents were very well available throughout the trial, we are of the view that even by exercise of Section 151 of CPC, the plaintiff cannot be permitted.

REPORTABLE

Supreme Court of India

M/S Bagai Construction Tr.Prop vs M/S Gupta Building Material Store on 22 February, 2013

Bench: P. Sathasivam, Jagdish Singh Khehar

           Citation:AIR 2013 SC 1849

Print Page