R. C. Lahoti ( 1 ) THE suit was filed on 28. 9. 91. Written the suit was filed on 28. 9. 91. Written statement was filed on l2. 3. 1993. On l4. 9. 1993,four weeks timewas allowed to the parties for filing the documents. Admission/denial of documents was carried out on20. 1. 1994,21. 1. 1994 and 24. 1. 1994. Issues were framed on24. 10. 1994. The Court allowed six weeks time to the parties for filing the list ofwitnesses before posting the case for trial. At this stage, both the learned Counselfor the parties have insisted on time being allowed for filing "further documents"by reference to Chapter VIII, Rule 5 (2) of Delhi High Court ( Original Side ) Rules,1967. ( 2 ). Learned Counsel for the parties were asked about the nature of documentswhich they proposed to file. It was stated by the learned Counsel that they were free to file any documents considered by them to be relevant and for thatpurpose they were entitled to an adjournment as of right. This was not onlycontemplated by rules but this has also been the practice consistently followed inthe High Court of Delhi (Original Side) submitted the learned Counsel. ( 3 ). 1 have heard them on the question whether after the framing of issues, whenthe stage for filing of the documents was already over, the parties could bepermitted to file further documents as of right, and if so, the nature of documentspermissible to be filed. ( 4 ). Delhi High Court ( Original Side) Rules have been framed in exercise of thepower conferred by Sections 122 and 129 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 andsection 7 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966. In case of conflict, the Original Siderules framed by High Court would override the provisions of Civil Procedure Code (See- M/s. Printpak Machinery Ltd. v. M/s. fay Kay Paper Congesters, AIR 1979 DELHI 217f. B.) ( 5 ). The High Court exercising its original jurisdiction is a Civil Court. It isgoverned by the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, the Originalside Rules (hereinafter OS Rules, for short) have been framed with the idea ofsupplementing the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. They would overridesuch provisions of Civil Procedure Code as may be inconsistent with the OS Rules. It isgoverned by the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, the Originalside Rules (hereinafter OS Rules, for short) have been framed with the idea ofsupplementing the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. They would overridesuch provisions of Civil Procedure Code as may be inconsistent with the OS Rules. The object behindframing of the rules was obviously to provide the Judge with a more firm grip overthe trial so as to make it more expeditious because a Court of higher status, seizedof matters of higher denomination assisted by the members of the High Court baror the Counsel appearing on the original side being better equipped and wellconversant with. the civil law - substantive and procedural - the cases arcexpected to be tried with more expedition, avoiding prolixity and laxity at the trial. The OS Rules have to be interpreted with that underlying object inview, avoidingany such interpretation as would result in contributing delay or laxity otherwiseavoidable at the trial. ( 6 ). Let the relevant provision of the Code of Civil Procedure be examined in thefirst instance. Order 7 Rule 14 Civil Procedure Code enjoins a plaintiff suing upon any document inhis possession or power to be produced with the plaint. Documents though notbasis of suit but on which the plaintiff relies, whether in his possession or poweror not, have to be listed and the list annexed with the plaint. Rule 18 providespenalty of exclusion of such documents from trial (except with the leave of thecourt) upon the plaintiff if not filed or listed in accordance with Rule 14. ( 7 ). The documents relied on by a defendant, whether in his possession orpower, in support of his defence, set off or counter claim have also to be listed andthe list filed with the written statement. If the documents be not in possession orpower of the defendant it has to be mentioned in whose possession or power theyare. The Court may grant time for filing such list. Default on the part of thedefendant would invite the penalty of documents being excluded from evidence onbehalf of the defendant except with the leave of the Court. ( 8 ). Order 13 Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code enjoins all the documentary evidence of every description in possession or power of the parties, if intended to be relied on, to be produced at or before the settlement of issues. ( 9 ). ( 8 ). Order 13 Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code enjoins all the documentary evidence of every description in possession or power of the parties, if intended to be relied on, to be produced at or before the settlement of issues. ( 9 ). The provisions clearly demonstrate the necessity of documents forming the basis of the suit being filed in the Court along with the presentation of plaint and the documents though not basis of the suit but relied on by either party being brought on the record of the case at or before the settlement of issues. ( 10 ). There is yet another category of documents, which, though relevant at the trial, may not be required to be filed With the plaint or written statement or even at or before settlement of issues. These documents may broadly be categorised as under:- (1) Documents handed - over to the witnesses for the purpose ofrefreshing memory but not to be relied on by either party in support ofits own case. (2) Documents produced only for the purpose of cross-examination byeither party s witness such as when a witness turns hostile and ispermitted to be cross-examined. ( 11 ). The plaintiff may have documents which are neither the basis of the suit nor relied on by him in support of his case yet he may be inclined to produce them in the Court in answer to any case set up by the defendant. These documents would also be covered by Order 13, Rule I CPC. Having become aware of the pleas raised in the written statement, the plaintiff is rightly expected to bring them on record at or before settlement of issues. ( 12 ). Now, the provisions in OS Rules may be examined. 12. 1. Chapter III, Rule 5 is a general provision contemplating English translation of all documents in a language other than English not to be received unlessaccompanied by English translation. A suit or other proceeding will not be setdown for hearing until and unless English translation of documents intended to berelied on has been filed. 12. 2. Ch. IV entitled - Presentation of Plaint and other documents refers todocuments in Rules 1 and 2, in the context of the plaint, without mentioning thenature of documents. Obviously the reference is to such documents as are contemplated by Order 7, Rule 14 CPC. 12. 3. Ch. 12. 2. Ch. IV entitled - Presentation of Plaint and other documents refers todocuments in Rules 1 and 2, in the context of the plaint, without mentioning thenature of documents. Obviously the reference is to such documents as are contemplated by Order 7, Rule 14 CPC. 12. 3. Ch. VI, Rule 5 speaks of List of documents in the context of writtenstatement again without mentioning the nature of documents. Obviously the lighthas to be taken from Order 8, Rule I Sub-rules (2) and (3 ). 12. 4. Chapter IV ( and other provisions too) contemplate all pleadings andeven Indian Administrative Service being served on the opposite party accompanied by documents formingpart of the pleadings or applications. 12. 5. Chapter VIII, Rule 1a is pan materia with Order 13, Rule 1 CPCrequiring both the parties to file in the Court on the date appointed for appearanceall documents in their power or possession upon which they intend to rely. Copiesof the documents are to be exchanged between the parties as per Rule IB. 12. 6. The entire scheme of the OS Rules contemplates documents being filedby the parties and also being served on the opponents at theearliest possible opportunity. So much so that by the time the stage has come when the Court may conductadmission/denial of documents between the parties it may even pronounce judgment at the first hearing. If the suit be not capable of being disposed of at the firsthearing and issues are to be framed, the Court may frame the issues. The issues maybe determined forthwith followed by a judgment. If the findings are not sufficientfor decision, the Court shall adjourn the matter directing the parties to file a list ofwitnesses. All these things shall be done keeping in view the basic documents andthe documents of reliance, also whether they have been admitted or not ?12. 7. Now, Chapter VIII, Rule 5 (2 ).-"parties shall along with the said list (list of witnesses) file further documentsif any. They shall also indicate the particular fact or documents which issought to be proved by the evidence of witnesses. After examining the list, thecourt shall give directions as to the hearing of the suit. ( 13 ). Whether further documents is wide enough to cover all and any documents, including the documents of reliance? They shall also indicate the particular fact or documents which issought to be proved by the evidence of witnesses. After examining the list, thecourt shall give directions as to the hearing of the suit. ( 13 ). Whether further documents is wide enough to cover all and any documents, including the documents of reliance? If further documents were to beinterpreted so widely then the whole idea behind insisting on production ofdocuments at the earliest and not beyond the first hearing before settlement ofissues, shall all be lost. Parties may file pleadings, may not file any document andthereby avoid admission/denial of documents. The Court may frame issues. Thenthe parties would file all documents which they may wish to do in the name of further documents . This would defeat the object of expeditious trial and anunscrupulous litigant would be able to set at naught the whole progress of the suittill that day by bringing it on record a number of documents in the garb of furtherdocuments . The OS Rules could never have intended such a result. ( 14 ). What is the effect of non-production of a document at the stage meant for its production ? 14. 1. A document on which a plaintiff has not in terms sued and which is notproduced in Court when the plaint is presented, can only be treated, if subsequently produced, as a piece of evidence and not as creating any rights in favour ofthe plaintiff. (See Sulaiman v. Bijaththumma, AIR 1916 PC 217, Narayanamurti v. Suryanarayana, AIR 1937 Madras 122 ). 14. 2. Non-production of document with the pleadings or at the first date ofhearing ( before settlement of issues) reasonably gives rise to two inferences. First,its genuineness is open to question. Secondly, it may be assumed against the partyproducing the document later that it did not want the opposite party to besubjected to admission/denial of document before the issues were struck. 14. 3. The documents essential to the claim or defence and the documents ofreliance if not produced at an appropriate stage and sought to be produced as further documents suffer two risks. Production at an appropriate stage is as ofright and Court is bound to receive the document without hearing the oppositeparty. 14. 3. The documents essential to the claim or defence and the documents ofreliance if not produced at an appropriate stage and sought to be produced as further documents suffer two risks. Production at an appropriate stage is as ofright and Court is bound to receive the document without hearing the oppositeparty. Document not produced at appropriate stage but sought to be produced as further document may not be received by the Court unless its earlier nonproduction is satisfactorily explained, on affidavit or otherwise and in forming anopinion on the acceptability of explanation the Court may hear the opposite partyas well. Such further document the Court may treat merely a piece of evidence andnot a document creating any right. ( 15 ). In the opinion of this Court the words "further documents" as occurringin Rule 5 (2) of Chapter VIII of OS Rules contemplate the following two broad category of documents: (1) Such documents as are neither the basis of the plaintiff s suit, (Order 7,rule 14 CPC) nor the documents intended to be relied by either partyat the trial, (Order 13, Rule I CPC), (2) The documents though forming the basis of the suit or intended to berelied by either party at the trial, and not filed either with the plaint orat the first hearing of the suit and as to which though a party has lostthe right of filing in the Court as of right yet on the delay beingexplained or sufficient cause being shown to the satisfaction of thecourt, the Court may be inclined to admit subject to such terms as itmay deem fit. In other words the documents contemplated by Order7, Rule 18 or Order 13, Rule 2 CPC. ( 16 ). The OS Rules do not contain provision equivalent to Order 7, Rule 18 andorder 13, Rule 2 Civil Procedure Code and there being nothing inconsistent therewith in the OSRules, these provisions of Civil Procedure Code will continue to apply to trial of suits on the Originalside. This has been conceded to by the learned Counsel. ( 17 ). Rule 5 (2) provide an occasion for entry of documents only by way ofexception and not as of right. It can be safely assumed that a plaint would bedrafted only after looking into documents forming basis of suit. So a writtenstatement will be drafted by looking into documents on which defence is based. ( 17 ). Rule 5 (2) provide an occasion for entry of documents only by way ofexception and not as of right. It can be safely assumed that a plaint would bedrafted only after looking into documents forming basis of suit. So a writtenstatement will be drafted by looking into documents on which defence is based. Pleadings having been exchanged, the parties know well or must know thedocuments on which they would rely and so must be ready with them. That is whythey are expected rather obliged, to file all such documents on the first date ofhearing. Rule 5 (2) warns and alerts the parties tore-scrutinise their briefs onceagain and if they notice any documents being the basis of suit claim/counter claimor defence and not filed till then, though should have been, to file them seekingleave of the Court, explaining satisfactorily the default of not filing earlier. Thehigh Court exercising original jurisdiction would not ordinarily, and certainly notlightly, permit documents being produced once the case is fixed for trial as suchindulgence, if shown, thwarts the progress of trial. Documents not covered by thetwo categories abovesaid and yet required to be filed may also be filed as furtherdocuments . ( 18 ). The case be now listed on 16-2-1995 for filing the list of witnesses and further documents as abovesaid (Ch. VII, R. 5 (2) OS Rules ).