The Secret Files: How a Supreme Court Ruling in the case of P. Ponnusamy Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu is Changing the "Fair Trial" Game in India?

What if the evidence that could prove your innocence is sitting in a police locker, but the prosecutor isn't required to show it to you? In the high-stakes arena of criminal justice, the "might of the state’s police machinery" often holds a decisive advantage, possessing a mountain of data, witness statements, and physical objects collected during an investigation. Traditionally, the prosecution has been the gatekeeper, sharing only the specific evidence it intends to use to prove guilt. This leaves the accused in a perilous shadow, unaware of materials that might point toward their innocence.

The Supreme Court of India recently confronted this imbalance in P. Ponnusamy v. State of Tamil Nadu. Decided On: 07.11.2022,MANU/SC/1451/2022. This wasn't just a routine appeal; it was a "Death Reference" (RT No. 2/2021) involving several individuals facing the ultimate penalty. The case forced the Court to navigate a treacherous path between the need for efficient, timely trials and the constitutional mandate for a fair defense. This article reveals how the ruling—and its clarification of the "Draft Rules of Criminal Practice"—is fundamentally shifting the landscape of undisclosed materials in Indian courts.

1. The Right to Know What Isn't Being Used

Print Page

Supreme Court: What are limitations on right of accused to seek documents at appellate stage?

As stated earlier, the requirement of disclosure elaborated on in Manoj, not only was premised on the formulation of draft rules, but normatively premised on the ratio of the three-judge bench decision in Manu Sharma (supra). In these circumstances, the proper and suitable interpretation of the disclosure requirement in Manoj (supra) would be that:

(a) It applies at the trial stage, after the charges are framed.

(b) The court is required to give one opportunity of disclosure, and the Accused may choose to avail of the facility at that stage.

(c) In case documents are sought, the trial court should exercise its discretion, having regard to the Rule of relevance in the context of the Accused's right of defence. If the document or material is relevant and does not merely have remote bearing to the defence, its production may be directed. This opportunity cannot be sought repeatedly-the trial court can decline to issue orders, if it feels that the attempt is to delay.

(d) At the appellate stage, the rights of the Accused are to be worked out within the parameters of Section 391 Code of Criminal Procedure. {Para 17}

18. That the Accused, has a right to fair trial, was not in doubt; but what is reiterated is that this right is manifested in the fair disclosure requirement elaborated above. While the concern of delay in conclusion of trial undoubtedly weighs heavily in the mind of the judge, it cannot entail compromise of the right of the Accused to fair investigation and trial.

19. Having regard to the above discussion we are of the opinion that the circumstances in which the request was made-through the letter after appeal was set down for hearing despite repeated opportunities, was not justified. The Appellant could have sought recourse by filing an appropriate application, in accordance with the procedures set out above, well in time. We therefore agree that the appeal made at this late stage, appears to be to prolong the hearing. In these circumstances, the Court declines to interfere. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1926 of 2022

Decided On: 07.11.2022

P. Ponnusamy Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

U.U. Lalit, C.J.I., S. Ravindra Bhat and Bela M. Trivedi, JJ.

Citation: MANU/SC/1451/2022.

Print Page

Bombay HC: Session Judge should not reject bail application of accused relying on documents produced across the bar by the complainant, which do not form part of the record of the investigation

 The Court also considered photographs produced by the complainant in Court, which were considered to arrive at a conclusion that she sustained injuries on her upper limbs. It is difficult to countenance such a procedure being followed by Sessions Court, whilst considering a bail application, to look into documents produced across the bar by the complainant, which do not form part of the record of the investigation. It is not expected of a Sessions Court to consider such material which does not form part of the investigation papers, but is taken as a ground for rejection of a bail. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BAIL) NO.32 OF 2025

Mr. Vinod Shetkar Vs  State of Goa

CORAM : VALMIKI MENEZES,J.

PRONOUNCED ON : 25th June 2025

Citation: 2025:BHC-GOA:1019,2025 ALLMR (CRI) 2928.

Print Page

Bombay HC: What is the duty of court while deciding application for production of documents?

 The trial Court allowed production without considering the objections which are raised now. Trial court was justified in allowing the production but it cannot be by blanket order. The plaintiff ought to explained their nature and other details. I think it is lacking. This Court feels Plaintiff need to clarify and satisfy the trial court about the relevancy of those documents vis a vis the suit claim and how amount covered therein is part of the original claim or this is part of the claim after deducting payment made by the defendant. Unless and until Plaintiff will clarify this, their production cannot be allowed. So part of the order needs to be modified. {Para 28}

ORDER

(ii) The objection as to production of the additional documents is not sustained.

(iii) However if Plaintiff desires the Trial Court to consider these invoices/documents, they are at liberty to file additional affidavit mentioning and clarifying that the amount covered by seven invoices is included in the suit claim and whether it is outside the plea taken about earlier payment.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Civil Writ Petition No. 14631 of 2024

Decided On: 19.11.2024

Virtual Veda Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Solutionsline Softtech Pvt. Ltd.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.M. Modak, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/7331/2024.

Print Page

Whether accused is entitled to be released on default bail if further investigation in respect of other accused is pending or for production of some documents?

In this regard, this Court recently held in case of CBI v. Kapil Wadhwan and Anr.2 that:

Once from the material produced along with the chargesheet, the court is satisfied about the commission of an offence and takes cognizance of the offence allegedly committed by the Accused, it is immaterial whether the further investigation in terms of Section 173(8) is pending or not. The pendency of the further investigation qua the other Accused or for production of some documents not available at the time of filing of chargesheet would neither vitiate the chargesheet, nor would it entitle the Accused to claim right to get default bail on the ground that the chargesheet was an incomplete chargesheet or that the chargesheet was not filed in terms of Section 173(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1511 of 2024 

Decided On: 12.03.2024

Dablu Kujur Vs. The State of Jharkhand

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Bela M. Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal, JJ.

Author: Bela M. Trivedi, J.

Citation:  MANU/SC/0194/2024.

Print Page

Whether plaintiff or a defendant, while deposing as a witness, can be confronted with documents in cross- examination completely divorced from or foreign to the pleadings made?

 The differentiation between the party to a suit and a witness, as is made clear by our earlier discussion, is not something that gels with the law. As has been hitherto observed, the term witness does not exclude the party to the suit i.e., the Plaintiff or the Defendant, themselves appearing before the court to enter evidence. As far as the non-production of documents amounting to fraud, it may be true that the non-production of documents on which the parties place reliance, may hinder the progression of the suit- and in a given case, perhaps may amount to fraud- but we do not comment on those possibilities, if any. However, the intentional withholding of a document, in these two situations- is completely different. One is the withholding of a document upon which the case depends, or is essential for the lis to be appropriately decided - and the other is solely for the purpose of effective cross-examination. The two cannot be held to be at the same pedestal, the latter most certainly not amounting to fraud.

{Para 20}

30. A reading of the judgments above would imply that substance is what the courts need to look into, and therefore, in reference to the production of documents, in the considered view of this Court, so long as the document is produced for the limited purpose of effective cross-examination or to jog the memory of the witness at the stand is not completely divorced from or foreign to the pleadings made, the same cannot be said to fly in the face of this established proposition.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 8146 of 2023 

Decided On: 14.12.2023

Mohammed Abdul Wahid Vs. Nilofer and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

B.R. Gavai and Sanjay Karol, JJ.

Author: Sanjay Karol, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/1342/2023.

Print Page

Whether accused can seek production of documents submitted by him to investigating officer not filed with chargesheet at the time of framing of charge?

 It is the specific case of the Petitioner that he has

furnished several documents to the Investigating Officer and the

list of documents furnished included the relevant extract of

WhatsApp and i messages exchanged between the Accused and

the Complainant, relevant photographs, flight and hotel

reservations, to demonstrate the consensual relationship between

the couple. The bank statements reflecting the amount

transferred to the complainant and by furnishing the documents

the Petitioner attempted to dispel the case of the prosecution of

forcible sexual intercourse and instead intended to plead a case of

consensual relationship between two adults.

No doubt, these documents were furnished by the

Petitioner to the Investigating Officer, but when he seek these

documents under Section 91, he has to establish necessity or

desirability of its production, which would have to be seen with

reference to the stage, when a prayer is made for its production.

The impugned Judgment has recorded that it is the

accused who had tendered the documents to the Investigating

Officer and therefore he is already in possession of these

documents and hence there is no justification for him seeking

production of these documents.

The aforesaid reasoning has missed out an important

aspect being the documents which the Petitioner is seeking are

sourced from the Investigating Officer since during the course of

investigation they have been submitted to him to rebut the case of the complainant of forcible sexual intercourse and since the

documents are collected during the course of investigation,

though tendered by the Petitioner himself, they are deemed to be

in custody of the Investigating Officer.{Para 21}

22 Through an Application being made under Section 91 of the Code, the Petitioner sought production of those documents, which is desirable for the purpose of trial as the documents collected during the course of investigation by whatever source will have a different connotation if they are produced through the Investigating Officer, as being received by him during investigation instead of the accused producing the same before the Court in his defence.

In the case of Criminal Trials Guidelines Regarding

Inadequacies and Defciencies, in RE (supra), the explanation

appended to Rule 4 has made it imperative to furnish a list of

documents/material which is collected by the Investigating offcer

through whatsoever source, but which do not form part of the

charge sheet and this may include several exculpatory

documents, statements, material etc. which has the potential to

weaken the case of the prosecution and benefit the accused.

23 In order to ensure fair investigation and fair trial to

the accused the Apex Court has formulated guideline No.4 in the

draft rules of Criminal Procedure Code, which contemplate an

indication to the accused about the documents collecting during

the investigation by classifying them, into the documents which

are annexed alongwith the charge sheet to which the accused is

undisputedly entitled to, in the wake of Sub Section (5) of Section

173 of CrP.C. and in another category would fall those documents/ evidence/material which though collected by the Investigating Officer has not been furnished to the Court alongwith the charge sheet/final report. Once the accused is aware that any material/ documents collecting during the investigation process, which has potential of absolving him of the guilt, which is made known to him through the list of documents, exhibits etc. furnished in terms of the explanation to Rule 4 of the Draft Rules, then the accused is entitled to seek those documents through an application under Section 91 of the Code by establishing its necessity and desirability, for the purpose of trial and upon such an application being made the Court shall issue summons to the person in whose possession or power such document or material is believed to be and the Court shall require him to attend and produce it or to produce it as directed.

24 The documents though furnished by the Petitioner to

the Investigating Officer, when directed to be produced through

the orders passed by the court under Section 91 will change its

context, as what is relevant is the source from which the

documents are being produced before the court, i.e. through the

Investigating Officer, which would assume significance. Moreover, there shall be a clarification at this sage about what documents are furnished by the accused as at the time of trial, the Investigating Officer may dispute the documents/material and its contents and therefore if the accused/Petitioner intends to have these documents produced at the time of framing of charge, provided the court is satisfied about its necessity and desirability for the purpose of trial, such application deserve to be granted.

25 Unfortunately, the impugned order failed to consider

this aspect of the matter and the learned Judge has not even

bothered to ensure compliance of Rule 4 of the Draft Criminal

Amendment Rules, which contemplate that a list of

statements/documents, material objects and exhibits that are not

relied upon by the Investigating officer is furnished to the

accused.

Since the inaction on part of the court to exercise the

power under Section 91 of the Code would cause severe and grave prejudice to the Petitioner, who is entitled to summon production of documents, which he had tendered to the Investigating Officer, by setting aside the impugned order, the matter is remanded to the Additional Sessions Judge to secure production of documents sought by the Petitioner in the Application filed under Section 91, as the documents are necessary and desirable for the purpose of trial, which are exculpatory in nature and would enable the accused to prove his innocence, though it is at the stage of framing of charge, as this will assure him, fairness in the trial.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION(ST) NO.17507 OF 2023

Dr.Sublendu Prakash Diwakar Vs State of Maharashtra 

CORAM : BHARATI DANGRE, J

PRONOUNCED ON : 4th DECEMBER, 2023

Print Page

Under which circumstance the court can reject application of defendant for production of document at the stage of their evidence?

 The revision-petitioners though stated that they referred

the documents during the cross-examination of P.W.1, did not

produce the said documents at that time, but filed the

documents when the suit is at the stage of defendants evidence

and sought the leave of the Court. As already stated above,

except the document No.6, no other document is referred in the

written statement by the revision-petitioners. No reason was also

assigned in the written statement for retaining the said

documents with the defendants at that time.{Para 11}

12. The affidavit filed by the revision-petitioners before the

Trial Court would show that documents were very much available with the defendants at the time of filing the written statement, but they did not file and now, they want to show that they retained them as they were required for taking loan from banks or getting benefits from the Government. But, no material is coming forthwith to support the same.

13. This Court in Ravi Satish and Voruganti Narayana Rao

cases (supra) held that grant of leave is not for mere asking, nor

is the Court a mere Post-Office to receive documents even in the

absence of any reasons being furnished for failure to file the said

documents along with the written statement.

14. In those circumstances, there are no grounds to interfere

with the Order of the Trial Court, as this Court did not find any

material irregularity in the impugned Order of the learned Trial

Court and the revision-petition is deserved to be dismissed.

 HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.4776 of 2016

Kottakota Lakkappa  Vs B.Lakkappagari Chikkaiah 

DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED : 18.08.2023

Coram:  SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI

Print Page

What are provisions regarding production of documents in CPC?

 O 7 R 14 of CPC.

14. 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, wherever 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 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.

(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.]

Print Page

Can the court reject an application for the production of documents because documents are not between plaintiff and defendant?

 The trial Court has also rejected the plaintiff's application on the ground that the documents in question are not between the plaintiff and the defendant, but they are documents between the officials of the defendant. I have no doubt that this observation of the trial Court is merely an obfuscation inasmuch as the correspondence between the officers of the defendant can certainly be relied upon by the plaintiff if according to the plaintiff the same may prove or support the plaintiff's case. It is obvious that the Order 11 Rule 12 does not in any way limit the discovery of documents, in the case of letters to the letters exchanged only by the parties to the suit. The requirements of this provision are limited only to the fact that the documents should be or should have been in the possession or power of a party to the suit, and that the same should relate to any matter in question in the suit. Clearly the letters in question satisfy these requirements and, therefore, the order for discovery thereof cannot be refused on the ground that the letters are not directly between the parties to the suit. {Para 7}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT

Civil Revn. Appln. No. 1254 of 1985

Decided On: 14.06.1991

 Kamalia Brothers and Co. Vs. State of Gujarat

Print Page

Can the court reject an application for the production of documents because documents are confidential?

The trial Court has upheld the contention of the defendant in respect of a simple plea that the letters are confidential letters and confidential letters cannot be produced and discovery in respect thereof cannot be granted. The trial Court has not assigned any cogent and or logical reason for upholding this bare plea. It must be borne in mind that the trial Court was conscious of the petitioner's plea that merely by labelling the letters in question as "Confidential Letters" the same cannot be excluded from the purview of Order 11, Rule 12 of Civil Procedure Code. The trial Court was also aware that the petitioner had specifically contended that no specific or particular privilege in respect of the letters in question had been claimed by the defendant, and that there was no claim and or contention on the part of the defendant that disclosure would be prejudicial to public interest and or to national security and or' opposed to public policy and or detrimental to the interest of the defendant in any other manner. In fact there is no reason (for the confidentiality) disclosed by the defendant nor any explanation and or clarification offered in respect of the nature of confidential letters. {Para 5}

6. Under the circumstances it is clear that the bare plea that the letters are It is, therefore, obvious that the letters" cannot be upheld.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT

Civil Revn. Appln. No. 1254 of 1985

Decided On: 14.06.1991

 Kamalia Brothers and Co. Vs. State of Gujarat

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Y.B. Bhatt, J.

Citation : AIR 1992 Guj 138, MANU/GJ/0147/1992

Print Page

Under which circumstances Appellate court can call upon Municipal Corporation to produce additional evidence at appellate stage?

 It is no doubt true that the Municipal authorities, due to negligence or otherwise, did not place these orders of delegation on the record of the Small Cause Court. Our attention has, however, been drawn to the Rules, known as "Municipal Appeal Rules, 1976" made by this Court in exercise of the powers conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution. Rule 10 of, the said Rules, inter alia, states that the written reply shall be set out in paragraphs numbered consecutively stating whether the facts are disputed by the respondent or not. In the instant case, there has been a general denial in the written statement, with regard to the validity of the orders passed, but that is not material because Rule 11 gives the Magistrate or the Judge power to suo motu call for additional evidence if he considers it necessary in the interest of justice. In our opinion, the Small Cause Court ought to have suo motu called for additional evidence. As has been stated in the said Civil Application, powers have been delegated by the Municipal Commissioners right since 1961. The Small Cause Courts ought to have enquired and required orders of delegation being placed on record. Section 49 and Section 69 both envisage delegation of powers and it would have been proper exercise of jurisdiction if the Small Cause Courts had demanded leading of such evidence. In any case, this Court has powers under Order 41 Rule 27 to entertain the application. Merely because there has been possible negligence on the part of the Corporation in not producing the orders of delegation before the Small Cause Court should not result in an undue or unjust benefit being given to a tenant and the Corporation being deprived of the tax legitimately due under the Act. This is a case where due to the fault in producing evidence in order to meet a technical objection on the part of the tenants, payment of legitimate tax dues are sought to be avoided. For the negligence of the Corporation's lawyer or its employees, public revenue should not be allowed to suffer and just dues must be paid. To our opinion, the power of the appellate court to allow fresh evidence even at the appellate stage under Order 41, Rule 27 cannot be disputed. The circumstances contained in the said provision are clearly satisfied. In this connection, reference may be made to the case of Billa Jagan Mohan Reddy v. Billa Sanjeeva Reddy, (1994) 4 SCC 659 where it has been observed that :--

"....It is settled law that, if the documents are found to be relevant to decide the real issue in the controversy, and when the court felt that interest of justice requires that the documents may be received, exercising the power under Order 41, Rule 27, CPC the appellate court would receive the documents and consider their effect thereof...."

In the present case, the interest of justice does require the acceptance of the documents, which clearly show that the Officers under whose signature the notices were issued and who passed the orders of assessment and sent the bills were duly empowered to do so. Accordingly, Civil Application No. 2232 of 1994 is allowed.

Gujarat High Court

Municipal Corporation Of The City ... vs Oriental Fire & General Insurance ... on 8 September, 1994

Print Page

Whether a party can seek production of additional documents at a later stage in the commercial suit if he has not produced those documents along with plaint as documents were voluminous?

 Now, so far as the other documents sought to be relied

on/produced as additional documents other than the invoices

are concerned the same stands on different footing. It is not

disputed and in fact it was specifically admitted and so stated

in the application that those additional documents other than

the invoices were in their possession but not produced being

voluminous and that the suit was filed urgently. However, it is

to be noted that when the second suit was filed, it cannot be

said to be urgent filing of the suit for injunction, as the first suit

was filed in the month of October, 2018 and there was an exparte

ad interim injunction vide order dated 29.10.2018 and

thereafter plaintiff withdrew the said first suit on 27.07.2019

with liberty to file a fresh suit as per the Commercial Courts Act

and the second suit came to be filed on 31.08.2019 after period

of one month of the withdrawal of first suit. Therefore the case

on behalf of the plaintiff that when the second suit was filed, it

was urgently filed therefore, the additional documents sought to

be relied upon other than the invoices were not filed as the

same were voluminous cannot be accepted. And therefore as

such Order XI Rule 1 (4) shall not be applicable, though the

application was filed within thirty days of filing of the second

suit. While seeking leave of the court to rely on documents,

which were in his power, possession, control or custody and not

disclosed along with plaint or within the extended period set

out in Order XI Rule 1 (4), the plaintiff has to establish the

reasonable cause for non disclosure along with plaint.

8.5 In view of the facts and circumstances narrated hereinabove

and in view of the filing of the first suit in the month of October,

2018; the exparte ad interim injunction order in favour of the

plaintiff dated 29.10.2018; withdrawal of the first suit on

27.07.2019 and subsequently the filing of the second suit on

31.08.2019, non filing of the additional documents other than

the invoices on the ground of they being voluminous cannot be

said to be a reasonable cause for non disclosure/filing along

with plaint. There was sufficient time gap between the filing of

the first suit and filing of the second suit i.e. approximately 10

months and therefore when the second suit was filed the

plaintiff was having sufficient time after filing of the first suit, to

file the additional documents other than the invoices at the

time when the second suit was filed. Therefore as such, both

the courts below have rightly not permitted the plaintiff to rely

upon the documents, other than the invoices as additional

documents in exercise of the powers under Order XI Rule 1 (4)

read with Order XI Rule 1 (5).

 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5620 OF 2021

SUDHIR KUMAR @ S. BALIYAN  Vs VINAY KUMAR G.B.

Print Page

Whether court can refuse to permit a party to produce a document on the ground that said document is suspicious?

 Even the reason given by the learned Commercial Court that

the invoices being suspicious and therefore not granting leave

to produce the said invoices cannot be accepted. At the stage of

granting leave to place on record additional documents the

court is not required to consider the genuineness of the

documents/additional documents, the stage at which

genuineness of the documents to be considered during the trial

and/or even at the stage of deciding the application under

Order XXXIX Rule 1 that too while considering prima facie case.

Therefore, the learned Commercial Court ought to have granted

leave to the plaintiff to rely on/produce the invoices as

mentioned in the application as additional documents.

 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5620 OF 2021

SUDHIR KUMAR @ S. BALIYAN  Vs VINAY KUMAR G.B.

Print Page

Should the plaintiff give reasonable cause for the production of additional documents in the commercial suit if the plaintiff has found those documents subsequently?

Therefore a further thirty days time is provided to the plaintiff

to place on record or file such additional documents in court

and a declaration on oath is required to be filed by the plaintiff

as was required as per Order XI Rule 1 (3) if for any reasonable

cause for non disclosure along with the plaint, the documents,

which were in the plaintiff’s power, possession, control or

custody and not disclosed along with plaint. Therefore plaintiff

has to satisfy and establish a reasonable cause for non

disclosure along with plaint. However, at the same time, the

requirement of establishing the reasonable cause for non

disclosure of the documents along with the plaint shall not be

applicable if it is averred and it is the case of the plaintiff that

those documents have been found subsequently and in fact

were not in the plaintiff’s power, possession, control or custody

at the time when the plaint was filed. Therefore Order XI Rule 1

(4) and Order XI Rule 1 (5) applicable to the commercial suit

shall be applicable only with respect to the documents which

were in plaintiff’s power, possession, control or custody and not

disclosed along with plaint. Therefore, the rigour of

establishing the reasonable cause in non disclosure along with

plaint may not arise in the case where the additional

documents sought to be produced/relied upon are discovered

subsequent to the filing of the plaint.

 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5620 OF 2021

SUDHIR KUMAR @ S. BALIYAN  Vs VINAY KUMAR G.B.

Dated: September 15, 2021

Print Page

Under which circumstances Commercial court can allow the production of documents at the subsequent stage?

 The learned Trial Court has referred to the provisions of Order XI Rule 5 CPC, as applicable to the commercial disputes. But, it has overlooked the provisions of Order XI Rule 1(1)(c)(ii) CPC, which permits the plaintiff to file documents in answer to the case set up by the defendant subsequent to the filing of the plaint. The precise case of the petitioner/plaintiff is that when the respondents/respondents denied that invoices were ever raised, the application was moved to bring the invoices on record. Under Order XI Rule 5 CPC, the court can grant leave to the plaintiff to file documents, not filed with the plaint. The learned Commercial Court erred in over-looking these provisions of the CPC. {Para 12}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

CM (M) 324/2021

VALO AUTOMOTIVE PVT LTD. Vs SPRINT CARS PVT LTD & ORS.

CORAM:

 MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON

Pronounced on: 18th August, 2021

Print Page

Whether wife can seek production of documents relating to income of husband under DV Act?

 It   is   true   that   the
application filed by the respondent wife before trial Court is somewhat
vague.   The   relevancy   of   the   documents   which   are   sought,   is   not
explained,   but   at   the   same   time   if   one   has   regard   to   the   nature   of
documents which are sought to be produced, those pertain to Sales Tax
and   Income   Tax   Returns   of   the   business   of   the   present   petitioners.
Needless to say that   as the proceedings are under Domestic Violence
Act and respondent wife is claiming various reliefs therein including that
of maintenance and also provision for residence, in order to decide the
quantum of maintenance, these documents are helpful not only to the
respondent wife, but also to the court  as they will depict financial status

of   the   petitioners'   family.   Therefore,   relevancy   of   these   documents
cannot be disputed even if not expressly pleaded.
6.   It may be true that petitioner No.1 being husband is alone
liable to provide maintenance to respondent wife, but even the financial
position of his parents and his family as such is required to be taken into
consideration for deciding the quantum of maintenance. If the petitioner
No.1 and his family is having several businesses and income therefrom,
then, production of income tax and Sales Tax returns of his businesses
will be relevant for assessing the quantum of maintenance and other
reliefs like provision of residence or compensation as may be asked by
the respondent wife. 
7. As regards the procedure, section 28(2) of the Domestic
Violence Act, makes it clear that the procedure has to be liberal and not
necessarily the one as prescribed by the provisions of Code of Criminal
Procedure and therefore, that cannot come in the way of the trial Court in
arriving at just and proper decision of the case and for that purpose
directing the petitioners to produce documents.  The order passed by the
trial Court also makes it clear that the petitioners are directed to produce
copies of documents of Sales Tax and Income Tax Returns in respect of
“their business firms”, therefore, it is not necessary that the petitioners

should produce all the documents, as prayed in the application  with this
clarification, in my considered opinion, no interference is warranted in
the   impugned   order   of   the   trial   court.  
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL  WRIT PETITION NO.1953 OF 2015.
 Mr. Prasad Janardan Kurade, 
    V/s.
 Mrs. Nikita Prasad Kurade 
CORAM  :  DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR­JOSHI, J.
DATE       :     13th  JANUARY, 2016.
Citation: 2016 ALLMR(CRI)2300

Print Page