CRP No. 338 of 2014. Case: Pranaballav Roy Vs Biswajit Dutta and Ors.. Guwahati High Court
| Case Number | CRP No. 338 of 2014 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: B.K. Purkayastha, Adv. and For Respondents: D. Chakraborty, Adv. |
| Judges | Nishitendu Chaudhury, J. |
| Issue | Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Order VII Rule 14, 14(3); Section 30; Constitution Of India - Article 227 |
| Citation | AIR 2016 Gau 177 |
| Judgement Date | October 25, 2016 |
| Court | Guwahati High Court |
Order:
Nishitendu Chaudhury, J.
-
Heard Mr. B.K. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the opposite parties. By filing this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the order dated 05.12.2013 passed by learned Munsiff No. 1, Cachar at Silchar in Title Suit No. 59/2009 thereby rejecting the prayer of the plaintiff for accepting documents submitted along with the examination-in-chief of the PW 1.
-
It is the case of the plaintiff that at the time of presentation of plaint the photocopy of all the documents were produced and so the defendants had due notice as to which documents were being exhibited by the plaintiff. However, at the time of settlement of issues the original documents were not produced. The plaintiff at the time of filing the examination-in-chief of the plaintiff as PW 1 annexed the original of the documents and sought to get the same exhibited. According to the plaintiff, since the photocopies were submitted earlier, there has been substantial compliance of the provision of law and there is no difficulty in accepting the documents in question.
-
Per contra, Mr. D. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the opposite parties, submits that the plaintiff was duty bound under Order VII, Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure either to obtain leave of the Court or to produce the document in original in appropriate time.
-
Having considered the arguments put forward by the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned order it appears that the learned Munsiff considered the provision of Order VII, Rule 14 to be a mandatory procedure and accordingly took a view that the plaintiff could not be permitted to produce the documents at that stage because of non compliance of Order VII, Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Mr. B.K. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, has placed on record a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kapil Kumar Sharma v. Lalit Kumar Sharma and another, reported in (2013) 14 SCC 612. In that case the Hon'ble Supreme Court took the view that cross-examination of the witness was yet to commence and so there was no reason for debarring a party from filing additional document in support of his claim. There is no doubt that procedural law is the handmaid of justice and it cannot take place of the substantive law. It is the case of the plaintiff that...
To continue reading
Request your trial