Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 87 (JK)

Ram Kumar Gupta v. Shanti Devi

2002-04-05

S.K.GUPTA

body2002
1. I have heard Mr. K. S, Johal. learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. R. K Gupta learned counsel for the respondents in extenso. 2. The sole controversy that arises in this revision is, as to wether the documents sought to be produced by the defendants witnesses, which have neither been disclosed in the list of the witnesses nor explicitly described in the written statement, in a suit for eviction that culminated to the stage of recording defendants evidence after the farming of the issues and closure of the plaintiffs evidence can be received in evidence and allowed to be proved in his statement . It is pertinent to point out that there are two stages regarding admission of document contemplated by order 13 rule 1 of the CPC, (1) Documents not required to be proved by calling witnesses, are to be marked at the first hearing or at the time of settlement of the issues; (2)Documents to be so proved by calling witnesses arc to be admitted and marked when proved and formally tendered in evidence. This principle however applies also to the documents filed with the leave of the court, after issues are farmed. The requirement as to production of document at the earliest is intended to secure speedy and orderly conduct of the suit. The parties can not be permitted to produce the documentary evidence as and when they like so as to take the other side by surprise. 3. In the instant case the defendant produced one Dr. Ram Saroop as witness in his case to prove whether the requirement of the suit shop is greater than that of the defendant. The defendants witness Dr. Ram Saroop while making a statement produced photocopy of the demand note and also calendar handed over to him by Naveen Bhasin son of the plaintiff so as to show that he was working in the said office of the Kashmir Times news paper when he visited there in June 1991. but the same was declined by the trial court to be produced for the purpose of being ultimately used as a documentary evidence in the case. 4. It was obviously on the ground that neither the defendant had stated in the written statement specifically that the documents sought to be produced were in possession of Dr. but the same was declined by the trial court to be produced for the purpose of being ultimately used as a documentary evidence in the case. 4. It was obviously on the ground that neither the defendant had stated in the written statement specifically that the documents sought to be produced were in possession of Dr. Ram Saroop nor indicated in the list of witnesses filed by him. a conjoint reading of order 8 rule 1 (3)&(5) makes it clearly manifest that the documents sought to be produced in the court with the written statement under sub rule (1) ought to be entered in the list of sub rule (2) winch has not been so produced or entered, accordingly shall not, without the leave of the court, be received in evidence on the defendants behalf at the hearing of the suit. It may further be pointed out that a photocopy and also a calender of a document being not admissible, cannot be received in evidence. In this view of the matter the order propunded by the trial court in my opinion does not suffer from any infirmity so as to invite interfence by this court in revision. 5. In the result the revision possessing no merit is accordingly dismissed. Record shall be remitted back to the trial court forthwith, where the parties through their counsel are directed to cause appearance on 26th April 2002.