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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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).

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.