Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a plaintiff can, with leave of the Court, tender documentary evidence at the hearing of the suit although the document was not produced with the plaint or included in the plaint schedule after the omission of Order 18, Rule 17-A and the insertion of Order 7, Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Analysis: The amended scheme of the Code was read harmoniously. Order 18, Rule 17-A, which earlier provided for production of evidence not previously available despite due diligence, had been omitted. At the same time, Order 7, Rule 14(3) was inserted to regulate reception in evidence of documents which ought to have been produced with the plaint but were not. On a reasonable construction, the later provision was held to preserve the power of the Court to grant leave for reception of such documents at the hearing, and the omission of Order 18, Rule 17-A did not create an absolute bar. The trial court proceeded on an incorrect view that no such evidence could be received at all.
Conclusion: The plaintiff was entitled to seek and obtain leave to adduce the document in evidence, and the refusal to allow the application was held unsustainable and illegal.
Ratio Decidendi: After the insertion of Order 7, Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, documents not filed with the plaint are not absolutely barred from evidence and may be received with the leave of the Court.