• Submission of more documents as evidence

Dear Sir/Madam:

My legal matter is before Arbitration.

I have already filed my Evidence Affidavit.

My cross-examination has not yet been conducted.

After filing of my Evidence Affidavit, I discovered more documents that I could use as my Evidence.

I filed an Application under Order VII Rule 14(2) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying that the Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to mark newly submitted documents along with the Application as my evidence.

I believe that I have a few more relevant documents.
Please let me know if I can still submit more documents as my evidence, before my cross-examination.

If yes, please let me know the Section under which I can file more evidence.

Thank you.
Asked 1 year ago in Civil Law from Bangalore, Karnataka
Hi, again you have to file an application under order 7 rule 14(3) that you are unable to produce the documents as mentioned in this application for the reason(you have to sate the reason) and then you can produce the documents.
Pradeep Bharathipura
Advocate, Bangalore
4105 Answers
133 Consultations
4.3 on 5.0
Court may permit leading
additional evidence at a later stage on such terms as may appear to be just if party satisfies Court
that after exercise of due diligence that evidence was not within his knowledge or could not be
produced at time party was leading evidence.

In Salem Advocates Bar Association's case, it has been clarified that on deletion of Order XVIII
Rule 17-A which provided for leading of additional evidence, the law existing before the introduction of the
amendment, i.e., 1
st July, 2002, would stand restored. The Rule was deleted by Amendment Act of 2002.
Even before insertion of Order XVIII Rule 17-A, the Court had inbuilt power to permit parties to produce
evidence not known to them earlier or which could not be produced in spite of due diligence. Order XVIII
Rule 17-A did not create any new right but only clarified the position. Therefore, deletion of Order XVIII
Rule 17-A does not disentitle production of evidence at a later stage. On a party satisfying the Court that
after exercise of due diligence that evidence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced at the
time the party was leading evidence, the Court may permit leading of such evidence at a later stage on
such terms as may appear to be just
Ajay Sethi
Advocate, Mumbai
23398 Answers
1230 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 496 and 570 of 2002
Decided On: 02.08.2005
Appellants: Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu
Vs.
Respondent: Union of India (UOI)
Hon'ble Judges: Y.K. Sabharwal, D.M. Dharmadhikari and


) Additional evidence – Order 28 Rule 17-A of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – deletion of Order
28 Rule 17-A does not disentitle production of evidence at later stage - Court may permit leading
additional evidence at a later stage on such terms as may appear to be just if party satisfies Court
that after exercise of due diligence that evidence was not within his knowledge or could not be
produced at time party was leading evidence.
Ajay Sethi
Advocate, Mumbai
23398 Answers
1230 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
1.In  SALEM ADVOCATE BAR ASSOCIATION, TAMIL NADU v. UNION OF INDIA it is held by the supreme court that before cross examination and before confirmation of the content of affidavit, witness has an opportunity to submit other relevant document. 

2. section 151 empowers the court to take any step in order to finality of the case, it is inherent jurisdiction but it is discretionary power of the court and not matter of right. 

3. You must show that at the time of filing affidavit this evidence was not discovered other wise it shall not be admitted by the court. 

4. You may take plea in application under section 151, for submission of evidence under order 11 rule 14, after the order of the court you can submit all the evidence  but borne inmind that you have to show that these evidence are necessary for disposal of case.    
Shivendra Pratap Singh
Advocate, Lucknow
2797 Answers
41 Consultations
4.9 on 5.0
In Rajesh Bhatia vs G. Parimala it is held by the court that under Order 11, Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure court has power to call any evidence which is necessary for final disposal of the case and which might  be filed in the case.
Shivendra Pratap Singh
Advocate, Lucknow
2797 Answers
41 Consultations
4.9 on 5.0
Yes you can file an additional petition for this purpose under  the same section or in order XXVI Rule 10(A)#1. How much time does it take to register a general partnership. And do we get any certificate for it ?
#2. We are planning to start our store in Bangalore , Karnataka but our residential address is in Lucknow. We don't have any commercial space in bangalore yet, so can we register the general partnership in Lucknow itself and operate in bangalore ? Or is it possible to register general partnership in Bangalore using lucknow address ?

#3. Do we get a firm name in general partnership ? Because we will need to name our firm something. 
#4. Regarding sales tax and service tax registration , is it possible to get them both for our general partnership firm ? And if we register our firm in lucknow , will it be possible to get sales tax and service tax registered in Bangalore
T Kalaiselvan
Advocate, Vellore
14171 Answers
128 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
1. Ordinarily once the affidavit has been given the court does not allow more documents to be placed on record. However, in exceptional cases the court or arbitrator, as the case may be, can allow additional documents to be brought on record if it is satisfied that the documents are essential to the just decision of the case. There is no particular section. 

2. If the arbitrator does not allow you to bring more documents on record you may move the High Court.

Ashish Davessar
Advocate, Jaipur
18266 Answers
450 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
It is dependent on the Tribunal after hearing both side arguments to see whether such documents needs to be exhibited or not. If the Tribunal after considering both sides arguments feels that these documents are relevant and are need to be gone into for the purpose of proper dispensation of justice, in such case, the Tribunal may allow submission of those marked documents as well.
Shaveta Chaudhary (Sanghi)
Advocate, Chandigarh
821 Answers
60 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
File application under Order 7 Rule 14 (3A)  and 151 for accepting new documents. Marked the documents at the time of giving Evidence on the court . If you want to submitting the documents only after giving the evidence , then Re open the evidence and submit the documents with petition for accepting the same and also tender the new evidence related with the new documents .Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure
Ajay N S
Advocate, Ernakulam
1918 Answers
19 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
1) it is better you submit additional documents in your possession before your cross examination 

2) at most court may grant 4 weeks time to Defendant . 

3) under order VII rule provides that in case plaintiff relies upon document in his possession it should be mentioned in list of documents annexed to the plaint   said documents has to be enclosed to the plaint . if said document is not in his possession it should be mentioned in whose possession document is . such document if not mentioned in list of documents nor enclosed to plaint should not be received in evidence without court permission . 

4) SC in case of bagai construction v/s Gupta building material store held The power under
Section 151 or Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code is not
intended to be used routinely, merely for the asking. If so
used, it will defeat the very purpose of various
amendments to the Code to expedite trials. But where the
application is found to be bona fide and where the
additional evidence, oral or documentary, will assist the
court to clarify the evidence on the issues and will assist in
rendering justice, and the court is satisfied that nonproduction earlier was for valid and sufficient reasons, the
court may exercise its discretion to recall the witnesses or
permit the fresh evidence. But if it does so, it should
ensure that the process does not become a protracting
tactic.
Ajay Sethi
Advocate, Mumbai
23398 Answers
1230 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.13655/2012
Bhojraj V/s. Jagdish Prasad Ojha & Anr.
Date of Order :: 27.05.2013
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA
Mr. B.M. Agarwal ]
Mr. Vijay Agarwal ] for the petitioner.
Mr. Sanjeet Purohit for the respondents.
Imploring annulment of the impugned order
dated 26
th July 2012 (Annex.6) passed by the learned
District Judge, Bikaner (for short, 'the learned trial Court'),
whereby the learned trial Court allowed the application of
the respondent-plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 14 read with
Section 151 CPC, the petitioner-defendant has laid the
instant writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India.
Precisely stated the facts of the case are that the first
respondent-plaintiff instituted a civil suit before the learned trial
Court for eviction from the shop, which was let out to the
petitioner and for arrears of rent. The civil suit was contested by
the petitioner-defendant and written statement was filed denying
the allegations contained in the plaint. After framing of the
issues, the evidence of respondent-plaintiff commenced and
statements of respondent-plaintiff, Jagdish Prasad were
recorded. After conclusion of the evidence of the respondent-
2
plaintiff, the petitioner-defendant himself appeared in the
witness box as D.W.1. During his cross-examination, when the
counsel for the respondent-plaintiff made endeavour to confront
the petitioner with certain documents, which were certified
copies of a petition laid by the petitioner under Section 19A and
Section 12 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and
Eviction) Act, 1950, the counsel for the petitioner-defendant
objected. To meet the said objection of the petitioner-defendant,
the respondent-plaintiff made endeavour to place on record the
certified copies of those documents and with that intent an
application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC was submitted on his
behalf before the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court after
hearing the rival parties, by the impugned order allowed the
application of the respondent-plaintiff and has taken on record
the certified copies of the documents on payment of cost of
Rs.200/-.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner,
Mr. B.M. Agarwal, and perused the impugned order.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently
argued that the documents on the basis of which the
respondent-plaintiff wanted to cross-examine the petitionerdefendant
were not on record and as such being not part of the
record, it was not desirable from the learned Court below to
permit the respondent-plaintiff to place on record these
documents. By placing reliance on Rule 14 of Order 7 CPC, the
learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that when the
plaintiff relies on certain documents in his power and possession
3
in support of his claim such documents are to be listed and are
required to be produced along with the plaint at the time of
laying of the suit. Thus, taking shelter of Order 7 Rule 14 CPC,
the learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued
that by granting indulgence to the respondent-plaintiff on his
application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC and permitting the
documents to be taken on record, the learned Court below has
committed jurisdictional error and as such the order impugned
suffers from the vice of an error apparent on the face of record.
In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the
petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of Waryam Singh
& Anr. V/s. Amarnath & anr. - AIR 1954 SC 215. The Apex Court
while examining the nature of superintendence under Article 227
of the Constitution of India has made following observations in
para 13 of the verdict:-
(13) Re.2- The material part of Article 227
substantially reproduces the provisions of
Section 107 of the Government of India Act,
1915 except that the power of
superintendence has been extended by the
Article also to Tribunals. That the Rent
Controller and the District Judge exercising
jurisdiction under the Act are Tribunals cannot
and has not been controverted. The only
question raised is as to the nature of the
power of superintendence conferred by the
Article. Reference is made to clause (2) of the
Article in support of the contention that this
Article only confers on the High Court
administrative superintendence over the
Subordinate Courts and Tribunals. We are
unable to accept this contention because
clause (2) is expressed to be without
prejudice to the generality of the provisions in
clause (1). Further, the preponderance of
judicial opinion in India was that section 107
which was similar in terms of section 15 of the
High Courts Act, 1861, gave a power of
judicial superintendence to the High Court
apart from and independently of the
provisions of other laws conferring revisional
jurisdiction on the High Court. 
4
In this connection it has to be remembered
that section 107 of the Government of India
Act, 1915 was reproduced in the Government
of India Act, 1935 as section 224. Section 224
of the 1935 Act, however, introduced subsection
(2), which was new, providing that
nothing in the section should be construed as
giving the High Court any jurisdiction to
question any judgment of any inferior Court
which was not otherwise subject to appeal or
revision. The idea presumably was to nullify
the effect of the decisions of the different High
Courts referred to above. Section 224 of the
1935 Act has been reproduced with certain
modifications in Article 227 of the
Constitution. It is significant to note that subsection
(2) to section 224 of the 1935 Act has
been ommitted from Article 227.
This significant omission has been regarded by
all High Courts in India before whom this
question has arisen as having restored to the
High Court the power of judicial
superintendence it had under section 15 of the
High Courts Act, 1861 and section 107 of the
Government of India Act, 1915. See the cases
referred to in – 'Moti Lal v. The State', AIR
1952 All 963 at p. 966 (A). Our attention has
not been drawn to any case which has taken a
different view and, as at present advised, we
see no reason to take a different view.
For appreciating the contentions of the learned
counsel for the petitioner, the purport of Order 7 Rule 14 CPC
deserves due credence. The complete text of Order 7 Rule 14 is
reproduced as infra :-
14. Production of document on which
plaintiff sues or relies.- (1) Where a plaintiff
sues upon a document or relies upon
document in his possession or power in
support of his claim, he shall enter such
documents in a list, and shall produce it in
court when the plaint is presented by him and
shall, at the same time deliver the document
and a copy thereof, to be filed with the plaint.
(2) Where any such document is not in the
possession or power of the plaintiff, he shall,
wherever possible, state in whose possession
or power it is.
[(3) A document which ought to be produced
in Court by the plaintiff when the plaint is
presented, or to be entered in the list to be
5
added or annexed to the plaint but is not
produced or entered accordingly, 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
produced for the cross examination of the
plaintiff's witnesses, or, handed over to a
witness merely to refresh his memory.]
Upon examining the impugned order on the anvil of
purposeful meaning and interpretation of Order 7 Rule 14 CPC, it
is crystal clear that by virtue of sub-rule (3) of Rule 14 of Order
7 CPC plaintiff can seek leave of the Court for production of a
document at a latter stage. The learned trial Court while passing
the order impugned has examined the rigor of Order 7 Rule 14
CPC and considering the fact that the documents which were
sought to be placed on record by the respondent plaintiff are
relevant and necessary for adjudication of the lis involved in the
matter has allowed the respondent-plaintiff to place those
documents on record.
In my considered opinion, the discretion exercised by
the learned Court below in allowing the application of the
respondent-plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC is neither
perverse, nor it has occasioned failure of justice. A glance at the
impugned order makes it amply clear that the learned trial Court
has thoroughly examined the matter and thereafter considering
the genuineness of the documents has taken those documents
on record. Therefore, in my view, the learned Court below has
not committed any jurisdictional error warranting interference in
exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court. The Apex Court
in Waryam Singh's case (supra) has laid down certain
6
parameters for power of superintendence under Article 227 in
clear and unequivocal terms in para 14 as infra :-
“This power of superintendence conferred by
Article 227 is to be exercised most sparingly
and only in appropriate cases in order to keep
the Subordinate Courts within the bounds of
their authority and not for correcting mere
errors.”
Applying the ratio decidendi of Wariyam Singh's case
(supra) in the backdrop of the facts and circumstances of the
instant case, no case is made out for exercising supervisory
jurisdiction of this Court to upset the impugned order.
Thus, viewed from any angle, the instant writ petition
of is bereft of any merit and devoid of force and the same is
hereby dismissed in limine.
(P.K. LOHRA) J
Ajay Sethi
Advocate, Mumbai
23398 Answers
1230 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
You should not worry or think about the delay in cross examination due to your filing of the additional evidence from your side, since you are exercising your right, the opposite party also has rights to be exercise in law. 

No you cannot do it because it your your evidence, either you have to mark it while deposing your chief examination or can mark it during cross examination of the opposite side provided they admit it if not you will be losing your chance to establish your case through the proposed evidence. 

No


Yes
T Kalaiselvan
Advocate, Vellore
14171 Answers
128 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
1.  Submission of newly found document does not come under Order 7 Rule 14(2). It is related to the documents not in custody of the plaintiff,

2. You can file application seeking leave for submitting newly found documents under Order 7 Rule 14(3).
Krishna Kishore Ganguly
Advocate, Kolkata
12143 Answers
234 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
1. Submit those documents before cross examination starts,

2. File applicationn seeking leave of the Court for submission of such additional documents as advised in my earlier post.
Krishna Kishore Ganguly
Advocate, Kolkata
12143 Answers
234 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0

Ask a Lawyer

Get legal answers from top-rated lawyers in 1 hour. It's quick, easy, and anonymous!
Ask a Lawyer

Civil Lawyers

T Kalaiselvan
Advocate, Vellore
14171 Answers
128 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Ajay Sethi
Advocate, Mumbai
23398 Answers
1230 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Ashish Davessar
Advocate, Jaipur
18266 Answers
450 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Krishna Kishore Ganguly
Advocate, Kolkata
12143 Answers
234 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Nadeem Qureshi
Advocate, New Delhi
3539 Answers
131 Consultations
4.9 on 5.0
Shivendra Pratap Singh
Advocate, Lucknow
2797 Answers
41 Consultations
4.9 on 5.0
Atulay Nehra
Advocate, Noida
444 Answers
15 Consultations
4.7 on 5.0
Rajgopalan Sripathi
Advocate, Hyderabad
873 Answers
43 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
Ajay N S
Advocate, Ernakulam
1918 Answers
19 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0
S J Mathew
Advocate, Mumbai
1954 Answers
66 Consultations
5.0 on 5.0