Party can be permitted to file document at the any stage of the suit. - CIVIL LAW

Monday, June 18, 2018

Party can be permitted to file document at the any stage of the suit.

Original documents to be produced at or before the settlement of issues- Order 13 Rule 1 CPC.
मूल दस्तावेजों का विवाद्यको के  परिनिर्धारण के समय या उससे पहले प्रस्तुत किया जाना- आदेश 13 नियम 1 सी. पी. सी .


आदेश 13 नियम 1 सी. पी. सी .-आदेश 13 नियम 1 सी. पी. सी .-
(1) पक्षकार या उनके अधिवक्ता विवाद्यको के परिनिर्धारण के समय या उससे पहले सभी दस्तावेजी साक्ष्य के मूल, जहां उनकी प्रतियां वाद या लिखित कथन के साथ लगाई गई, पेश करेंगे।

(2) न्यायालय इस प्रकार प्रस्तुत की गई दस्तावेजों को ले लेगा।
परंतु यह तब जबकि उनके साथ ऐसे प्ररूप में तैयार की गई एक सही सूची हो जो उच्च न्यायालय ने निर्दिष्ट किया हो।




(3) उपनियम (1) की कोई भी बात ऐसे दस्तावेजों को लागू नहीं होगी, जो,
( क) दूसरे पक्षकारों के साक्षियों की प्रति परीक्षा करने के लिए पेश किए गए हैं: अथवा
( ख) किसी साक्षी को केवल उनकी स्मृति को ताज़ा करने के लिए दिए गए हैं।

साक्ष्य का, चाहे वह मौखिक हो अथवा दस्तावेजी, वाद की सुनवाई एवं निपटारे में एक महत्वपूर्ण स्थान होता है। सच तो यह है कि साक्ष्य के अभाव में सही निष्कर्ष पर पहुंचा कि नहीं जा सकता है। यदि साक्ष्य दस्तावेजी है और मूल रूप में है तो यह न्यायिक प्रक्रिया को अत्यंत सरल और शीघ्रगामी बना देता है। यही कारण है कि पक्षकारों को अपने अभिवचन में दस्तावेजी साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत करना होता है। संहिता में आदेश 13 में दस्तावेजों के प्रस्तुतीकरण परिबद्ध किए जाने एवं लौटाए जाने के बारे में प्रावधान किया गया है।

पक्षकार या उनके अभिवक्ता द्वारा अपने कब्जे या शक्ति में के प्रत्येक अभी वर्णन के ऐसे सब दस्तावेज़ी साक्ष्य को, जिनका सहारा लेने का उनका आशय हो और जो न्यायालय में उस समय तक प्रस्तुत नहीं किया गया है और उन सब दस्तावेजों को, जिन्हें प्रस्तुत करने के लिए न्यायालय ने आदेश दिया है, वाद पदों के स्थरीकरण के समय या उसके पूर्व प्रस्तुत करना होगा।
न्यायालय में प्रस्तुत किए गए दस्तावेजों को प्राप्त करेगा, परंतु यह तब तक जबकि उनके साथ उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा निर्दिष्ट प्ररूप मैं तैयार की गई एक विशुद्ध सूची हो।

न्यायालय अपनी विवेकाधीन शक्ति के अंतर्गत किसी दस्तावेज को वाद के किसी पश्चातवर्ती प्रक्रम पर भी स्वीकार कर सकता है।

क्या न्यायालय अंतिम बहस के स्तर पर किसी प्रकार को दस्तावेज प्रस्तुत करने की अनुमति दे सकता है? इस संबंध में माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा पारित निर्णय-

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Civil Appeal No. 2254 of 1994
Decided On: 28.01.1994
 Billa Jagan Mohan Reddy and Anr. Vs.  Billa Sanjeeva Reddy and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
K. Ramaswamy and B.L. Hansaria, JJ.
Citation: (1994) 4 SCC 659





1. The Office Report and also the affidavit of dasti service would prove that respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4 have been served by usual mode and respondent Nos. 3, 5, 6 and 7 refused to receive notice even by dasti. Under these circumstances, the service in the S.L.P. is complete. When the case was called, no one appeared for them, nor did they appear in person.

2. Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the appellants.

3. The appellants are the first party in the reference proceedings under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act which relates to an extent of Acre 33.09 gunthas of land in Chintagattu Village, Warangal District, Andhra Pradesh, acquired due to submersion of Pochampadu Project. After determination of compensation, since the appellants claimed l/4th share therein and was objected to by the 2nd party/respondents, the Collector made a reference under Section 30 and it is now pending decision therein. The title of the appellants to claim compensation is based on the entries in the record of rights, revenue records to show pre-existing title. They sought to prove it by filing copies of family holdings, Khasra Pahnin and Pahni Patrikas for the year 1954-55 and Certified Copy of Pahani from M.R.O. Hasanparthy of Section Nos. 22A, 48, 55, 56, 57/C, 58/B, 58/C for the years 1959-60 to 1969-70 and other documents. The documents were sought to be produced by an application for condonation of delay in their production under Order 13, Rule (12) of C.P.C. These documents are public documents. The Sub-ordinate Judge dismissed the same. On revision, the High Court dismissed the C.R.P. No. 2805/92 by order dated 5.7.1993. Thus this appeal by special leave.

4. Order XIII Rule 1 provides thus:

1. Documentary evidence to be produced at or before settlement of issues -

(1) The parties or their pleaders shall produce, at or before the settlement of issues, all the documentary evidence of every description in their possession or power, on which they intend to rely, and which has not already been filed in Court, and all documents which the Court has ordered to be produced.

(2) The Court shall receive the documents so produced;

Provided that they are accompanied by an accurate list thereof prepared in such form as the High Court directs.
It is clear from its bare reading that the parties or their counsel shall be required to produce all the documentary evidence in their possession or power which they intend to rely on to establish their right along with pleadings or before settlement of the issues. The Court is enjoined under Sub-rule (2) to receive such documents provided they are accompanied by an accurate list thereof prepared in the prescribed form. If they are not in the party's possession or custody, it shall be filed by the party along with an application to condone the delay in filing them. The explanation for delay is not as rigorous as one filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. These documents were not in the possession or custody of the appellant, but they have obtained certified copies from the revenue authorities and sought to be produced. It is undoubted that there is a delay in production of the said documents. But the trial court had stated that the application was filed at the stage of arguments, seeking to produce those documents and sought to rely upon the documents. 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 C.P.C. the appellate court would receive the documents and consider their effect thereof. When such is the position, when the documents are sought to be produced in the trial court, before the arguments are completed, normally they may be received; an opportunity given to prove them and rebuttal if any and their relevance and effect may have, be considered in deciding the issues arose in the controversy. Under these circumstances, the trial court was not justified in refusing to condone the delay and to receive the documents. The High Court also committed the same error in not considering the effect in this behalf in the right perspective. The orders are accordingly set aside and the delay in filing the documents is condoned. The Trial Court is directed to receive the documents, give an opportunity to the parties to prove the documents and if necessary, opportunity to the respondent to rebut the same and then dispose of the reference according to law.

5. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.





 नोट :- आपकी सुविधा के लिए इस वेबसाइट का APP-CIVIL LAW- GOOGLE PLAY STORE में अपलोड किया गया हैं जिसकी उपर दी गयी हैं। आप इसे अपने फ़ोन में डाउनलोड करके ब्लॉग से नई जानकारी के लिए जुड़े रहे।

No comments:

Post a Comment

Post Top Ad