CASE LAW ANALYSIS
SUGANDHI ( DEAD)
VS
P. RAJ KUMAR
PRIMARY DETAILS OF THE CASE
Case Number : Civil Appeal No. 3427 of 2020
Statutes Involved : Civil Procedure Code
Case Decided on : October 13, 2020
Judges : S. Abdul Nazeer and Sanjiv Khanna
Legal Provisions Involved : Rule 1A (3) of Order 8 of Civil Procedure Code,
Rule 1 (1) of Order 13 of Civil Procedure Cod
Case Summary Prepared : Preeti Bafna
By ( Student of Karnavati University)
FACTS OF THE CASE
The plaintiff filed a suit for injunction with the claim that the defendant
seeks to attain the suit schedule property.
Further the defendant was called to present the evidence; he failed in
implementing the order with a written statement. The defendant filed an
application requesting leave to produce the requisite documents. The
defendant claimed to have found the said documents because which he was
unable to present on the day of the hearing.
The Trial Court rejected the application because the defendant applied to
exhibit the documents quite after the resolution of the dispute and at a later
stage of the judicial proceedings. The High Court affirmed the order passed
by the Trial Court.
Therefore, the defendant moved a revision petition in the Supreme Court of
India challenging the order of the lower courts
ISSUE RAISED BEFORE THE COURT OF LAW
The appeal was raised before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India through a revision petition by the
defendant or the appellant seeking for a leave
application to exhibit the requisite documents which
was dismissed by the lower courts under Order 8
Rule 1A(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure
LEGAL ASPECTS INVOLVED
The Rule 1A (3) of Order 8 of Civil Procedure Code stipulates the procedure
for the presentation of the requisite documents by the defendant- It stated as:
Sub rule (3) states that a document which is not produced at the time of filing of the
written statement shall not be received in evidence except with the leave of the
court. It further provides a second opportunity to the defendant to produce the
documents which ought to have been produced in the court along with the written
statement, with the leave of the court. The discretion conferred upon the court to
grant such leave is to be exercised judiciously. While there is no straight jacket
formula, this leave can be granted by the court on a good cause being shown by the
defendant.
Rule (1) of Order 13 of C.P.C. again makes it mandatory for the parties to
produce their original documents before settlement of issues.
JUDGEMENT
The two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court opined that
“Procedure is the outcome of justice. Fair and equitable justice
requires the Courts to exercise a flexible approach in dealing with
cases. This would enhance providing equal opportunities and
promote the fair implementation of the established structure of law.
It held that the leave application should be accepted with a liberal
approach by the lower courts. The lower courts must act in a
generous manner when faced with cogent and reasonable
justifications for a leave application. The fact that needs to be
highlighted is that the exhibition of documents does not keep the
plaintiff in a position of jeopardy.
Therefore, the Bench affirmed the appeal of the defendant for a
revision petition and thereby, allowed the leave of application for
the presentation of the requisite documents. Secondly, the orders
challenged by the lower courts were repealed.
In the case of Jindal Stainless (Hisar) Limited vs Saourabh Jinal &
Ors., the Hon’able Supreme Court of India has given a wide and liberal
interpretation of the afore mentioned provision of law while dealing with
the issue of taking on record the additional document subsequent to the
filing of a written statement. It is often said that procedure is the
handmaid of justice. Procedural and technical hurdles shall not be
allowed to come in the way of the court while doing substantial justice. If
the procedural violation does not seriously cause prejudice to the
adversary party, courts must lean towards doing substantial justice rather
than relying upon procedural and technical violation.
We should not forget the fact that litigation is nothing but a journey
towards truth which is the foundation of justice and the court is required
to take appropriate steps to thrash out the underlying truth in every
dispute. Therefore, the court should take a lenient view when an
application is made for production of the documents under sub-rule (3)."
CONCLUSION
The procedure of law is sacrosanct for the judicial
proceedings, however, keeping in light the cogent
reasons the courts should act in a manner consonance
in bringing about fair justice. The lower courts must
take a lenient approach in handling the presentation of
documents. This would promote the validity of the
decision and the legitimacy of fair and reasonable
judicial proceedings.
THANK YOU
