The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK C.M.P. No.662 of 2024 (An application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India) --------------- Muralidhar Beura ...… Petitioner -Versus- Reena Beura @ Lenka & Anr. ..…. Opp. Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- _______________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Mr. B.B. Mishra, Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. A.C. Mohapatra, Advocate [For O.P. No.1] ___________________________________________ CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA JUDGMENT 19th December, 2025 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.
Legal Reasoning
The Petitioner is Defendant No.1 in C.S.(1) No.209 of 2007 pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), 1st Court, Cuttack filed by the present Page 1 of 8 Opposite Party No.1-Plaintiff. Opposite Party No.2 is Defendant No.2 in the said suit. 2. In the present application filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner challenges order dated 06.03.2024 passed by the said Court in allowing an application filed by the plaintiff to mark certain documents as exhibits after closure of evidence in the case. 3. The facts, necessary only to decide the present application are that the plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration. The defendants are contesting the suit by filing separate written statements. In course of hearing, the plaintiff examined witnesses and several documents were marked exhibits from her side. Defendant No.1 also examined witnesses on his behalf and proved certain documents, which were marked exhibits from his side. At this stage, the plaintiff filed a petition on 22.09.2023 with prayer to accept ten documents as mentioned in the schedule to the petition and to mark them as exhibits from her side. It is stated that the documents are public documents being original and certified copies and are relevant and have a bearing on the controversy between the Page 2 of 8 parties. The defendants filed objections stating that such petition cannot be allowed at a belated stage, particularly when the plaintiff has not explained as to why the documents were not filed earlier. By the order impugned, the Court below, after going through the documents held that the same appeared to be vital, relevant and would assist the Court in coming to a just decision and to decide the real issue in controversy. Further, the defendants shall also be given opportunity to rebut or question the credibility of the documents. The petition was therefore, allowed and the documents in question were directed to be marked as exhibits. 4.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. B.B. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the Defendant-Petitioner and Mr. A.C. Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the Plaintiff- Opposite Party No.1. 5. Mr. Mishra would argue that there is no provision in the Code of Civil Procedure to accept documents filed after closure of evidence. Moreover, the documents sought to be exhibited were neither pleaded nor mentioned in the list of documents relied upon in the Page 3 of 8 plaint. It is, therefore, evident that the plaintiff seeks to fill up the lacuna in her case, which is not permissible. The plaintiff has also not given adequate explanation for not producing the documents earlier. In support of his contention, Mr. Mishra has relied upon the judgments of this Court passed in Pitani Sai Vs. Pitani Nagmani1 and Sarat Chandra Mohapatra Vs. Narsingha Mohapatra2. 6. Per contra, Mr. Mohapatra would submit that the Court has ample power to accept documents at a later stage and admit them into evidence if the same are considered necessary to decide the controversy between the parties. Moreover, the documents sought to be exhibited are all public documents, against which the defendants have the opportunity to adduce rebuttal evidence. 7. The Code of Civil Procedure lays down the stage and procedure for producing documents. Order XIII Rule 1, being relevant is reproduced below:- “1.Original documents to be produced at or before the settlement of issues- (1) The parties or their pleader shall produce on or before the settlement of issues, all the documentary evidence in original 1 2017 (I) OLR-873 2 2017 (I) OLR-633 Page 4 of 8 where the copies thereof have been filed along with plaint or written statement. (2) The Court shall receive the documents so produced: Provided that they are accompanied by an accurate list thereof prepared in such form as the High Court directs. (3) Nothing in sub-rule (1) shall apply to documents- (a) produced for the cross-examination of the witnesses of the other party; or (b) handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.” 8. If an extreme interpretation of the above provision is made, there would be no scope for producing documents subsequent to the settlement of issues. However, the case at hand is one in which the prayer of the plaintiff was not merely for production of documents but for their reception in evidence. For this, Order VII Rule 14(3) would be relevant which is quoted below:- “(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 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.” 9. From a plain reading of the above provision, it would be clear that a document can be produced at a later Page 5 of 8 stage but only with the leave of the Court. The Court is thus vested with discretion in this regard. This implies that if proper cause is shown to the satisfaction of the Court for belated production of the documents, the same can always be accepted. The Court can exercise its discretion in favour of the party seeking the desired relief by citing some justified reasons. The Andhra Pradesh High Court, while dealing with a similar issue in Bada Bodaiah & Another v. Bada Linga Swamy & Others3 held as follows: “11. The provisions of Order VII Rule 14(3) were impliedly upheld. Even after amendment, the trial Court is vested with the discretion whether or not to permit the plaintiff to produce evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit.” 10. In the instant case, the Court below has specifically held that the documents appear to be vital, relevant and would assist it in coming to a just decision and in deciding the real issue in controversy. Further, it has been observed that the defendants shall also be given opportunity to rebut or question the credibility of the documents. According to the considered view of this Court, this is a reasonable ground for allowing the prayer of the 3 2003 (1) A.P.L.J. 141 (HC) Page 6 of 8 plaintiff. The defendants cannot claim to have been prejudiced, as mere marking of the documents as exhibits or admitting them at a belated stage does not take away right to adduce rebuttal evidence or even to question the credibility of the said documents. 11. In the case of Pitani Sai (Supra), the documents sought to be introduced at a later stage were found to have no connection with the suit land for which, the prayer was rejected by the trial Court. From what has been narrated before, the opposite is the case here. 12. In the case of Sarat Chandra Mohapatra (Supra) also, the application was rejected as a second application had been filed seeking the same relief as also by not explaining the reasons for delay. It was held that no good cause was shown to the satisfaction of the Court for not filing the documents earlier. This Court fails to understand as to how the said judgment would be applicable to the facts of the present case. 13. Thus, from the analysis of facts, law and discussions made hereinbefore, this Court fully concurs with the reasoning adopted by the trial Court in allowing Page 7 of 8 the petition of the plaintiff. This Court therefore, finds no reason to interfere. 14. In the result, the CMP being devoid of merit is, therefore, dismissed. ……..………………….. Sashikanta Mishra, Judge High Court of Orissa, Cuttack The 19th of December, 2025/ Puspanjali Ghadai, Jr. Steno Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PUSPANJALI GHADAI Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 22-Dec-2025 16:44:48 Page 8 of 8