2020 INSC 0548 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3427 OF 2020 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.16491 of 2019) SUGANDHI (dead) by Lrs. & ANR.           … APPELLANT(S)  VERSUS P. RAJKUMAR REP. BY HIS POWER AGENT IMAM OLI         … RESPONDENT(S) O R D E R 1. Leave granted. 2. This   appeal   is   directed   against   the   Order   dated   19.02.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras, Madurai Bench, in C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.2609   of   2018   whereby   the   High   Court   has dismissed the revision petition filed by the appellants challenging  the refusal   to   entertain   an   application   under   Order   8   Rule   1A(3)   of   the Code   of   Civil   Procedure,   1908   (for   short   ‘C.P.C.’)   seeking   leave   of   the court to produce additional documents.   2 3. The appellants herein are the defendants in the suit, O.S. No.257 of   2014,   on   the   file   of   the   Principal   Sub­Judge,   Pudukottai,   and   the respondent   is   the   plaintiff.     For   the   sake   of   convenience,   parties   are referred   to   in   their   respective   positions   before   the   Trial   Court.     The plaintiff   filed   the   suit   for   injunction   alleging   that   the   defendants   are attempting   to   grab   the   suit   schedule   property.     When   the   suit   was posted   for   the   evidence   of   the   defendants,   they   filed   an   application seeking   leave   to   produce   certain   documents.     It   was   contended   that they had recently traced these documents related to the suit property and that was why they could not produce them along with the written statement.     This   application   was   opposed   by   the   plaintiff.     The   Trial Court by its Order dated 11 th  October, 2018 dismissed the application. As noticed above, the High Court has confirmed the order of the Trial Court.  4. Mr.   R.   Anand   Padmanabhan,   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the appellants­defendants,   submits   that   the   said   documents   are necessary   for   just   determination   of   the   case.     Due   to   certain unavoidable   circumstances,   the   same   could   not   be   produced   by   the defendants   along   with   the   written   statement.    It   was   argued   that   the courts   below   have   rejected   the   application   on   flimsy   grounds.     He 3 submits that no prejudice whatsoever would be caused to the plaintiff by production of these documents.  5.   On the other hand, Mr. S. Mahendran, learned counsel appearing for the respondent­plaintiff, has supported the impugned orders of the courts   below.     It   is   argued   that   the   defendants   are   not   entitled   as   a matter   of   right   to   produce   the   documents,   particularly   when   the plaintiff has concluded his evidence. 6. We   have   given   our   anxious   consideration   to   the   contentions   of the learned counsel of the parties. 7. Rule   1A   of   Order   8   of   C.P.C.   provides   the   procedure   for production of documents by the defendant which is as under: “ 1A.   Duty   of   defendant   to   produce   documents   upon   which relief is claimed or relied upon by him.— (1)   Where   the   defendant   bases   his   defence   upon   a   document   or relies   upon  any   document   in  his   possession   or  power,  in  support of his  defence or  claim  for  set­off  or  counter­claim, he shall  enter such   document   in   a   list,   and   shall   produce   it   in   Court   when   the written statement is presented by him and shall, at the same time, deliver   the   document   and   a   copy   thereof,   to   be   filed   with   the written statement. (2) Where any such document is not in the possession or power of the   defendant,   he   shall,   wherever   possible,   state   in   whose possession or power it is. (3)   A   document   which   ought   to   be   produced   in   Court   by   the defendant   under   this   rule,   but,   is   not   so   produced   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— (a) produced for the cross­examination of the plaintiff’s witnesses, or 4 (b) handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.” Sub­rule (1) mandates the defendant to produce the documents in his possession   before   the   court   and   file   the   same   along   with   his   written statement.     He   must   list   out   the   documents   which   are   in   his possession   or   power   as   well   as   those   which   are   not.   In   case   the defendant   does   not   file   any   document   or   copy   thereof   along   with   his written   statement,   such   a   document   shall   not   be   allowed   to   be received   in   evidence   on   behalf   of   the   defendant   at   the   hearing   of   the suit.   However, this will not apply to a document produced for cross­ examination   of   the   plaintiff’s   witnesses   or   handed   over   to   a   witness merely   to   refresh   his   memory.   Sub­rule   (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. 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.   8. Sub­rule   (3),   as   quoted   above,   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 5 formula, this leave can be granted by the court on a good cause being shown by the defendant. 9. 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 sub­rule (3).  10.   Coming   to   the   present   case,   the   defendants   have   filed   an application assigning cogent reasons for not producing the documents along   with   the   written   statement.   They   have   stated   that   these documents   were   missing   and   were   only   traced   at   a   later   stage.     It cannot be disputed that these documents are necessary for arriving at a   just   decision   in   the   suit.    We   are   of   the   view   that   the   courts   below ought to have granted leave to produce these documents.  6 11. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, the appeal succeeds and it is accordingly allowed.   The orders impugned herein are set aside.     The application   (I.A.   No.551   of   2018   in   O.S.   NO.257   of   2014)   filed   by   the appellants­defendants   before   the   Principal   Sub­Judge,   Pudukottai,   is accordingly allowed.  Parties to bear their own costs. …….……………………………J.     (S. ABDUL NAZEER) …….……………………………J.     (SANJIV KHANNA) New Delhi; October 13, 2020. 7 ITEM NO.27 Court 10 (Video Conferencing) SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 16491/2019 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 19-02-2019 in CRP(NPD)(MD) No. 2609/2018 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Madras At Madurai) SUGANDHI (DEAD)by Lrs. & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS P. RAJKUMAR REP. BY POWER AGENT IMAM OLI Respondent(s) IA No. 102881/2019 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Date : 13-10-2020 This matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA For Petitioner(s) Mr. Anand Padmanabhan, Adv. Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. S. Mahendran, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. Substitution allowed. Leave granted. The Appeal is allowed in terms of the Reportable Signed Order. All pending applications are disposed of. (NEELAM GULATI) (KAMLESH RAWAT) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH) (Reportable Signed order is placed on the file)