Belated production of foundational document and secondary evidence requirements justified refusal to receive a typed partition deed.

A document forming the basis of a plaintiff's claim must ordinarily be filed with the plaint, and belated production is barred by Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC unless leave is obtained. A typed copy of a partition deed was also not shown, on the affidavit filed, to satisfy the requirements for secondary evidence under Section 63 of the Evidence Act or any condition under Section 65. The trial court's reasons were not fully accurate, but its refusal to receive the document was sustainable, so supervisory interference under Article 227 was unwarranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 227 with the trial court's refusal to receive a typed copy of a partition deed as evidence at a belated stage.

Analysis: A document that forms the basis of a plaintiff's claim and ought to have been produced with the plaint attracts the embargo under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, unless leave of the Court is granted. The belated document in question was only a typed copy, and the affidavit did not disclose the factual foundation required for treating it as secondary evidence under Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 or for satisfying any of the conditions under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Even if the trial court did not assign fully accurate reasons, the ultimate refusal to receive the document was sustainable, and supervisory interference is not warranted where the conclusion is correct.

Conclusion: The refusal to receive the document was upheld and no interference was made under Article 227.

---