The Supreme Court in Levaku Pedda Reddamma v. Gottumukkala Venkata Subbamma observed that refusing permission to a party in a civil suit to produce additional documents even if there is some delay will lead to denial of justice.
The Court observed that rules of procedure are handmaid of justice. The provision of seeking the leave of the Court to produce additional documents as evidence is laid down in Order VIII Rule 1A (3). The Sub Rule (3) provides that a document which ought to be produced in Court by the defendant under this rule, but, is not so produced shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit. It was observed that even though the trial court is at liberty to impose some amount of cost for the delay but should not deny the request in toto. That would mean denying the accused an opportunity to defend himself.
Therefore, the Court concluded by observing
"We find that the trial Court as well as the High Court have gravely erred in law in not permitting the defendants to produce documents, the relevance of which can be examined by the trial Court on the basis of the evidence to be led, but to deprive a party to the suit not to file documents even if there is some delay will lead to denial of justice. It is well settled that rules of procedure are hand-maid of justice and, therefore, even if there is some delay, the trial Court should have imposed some costs rather than to decline the production of the documents itself. Consequently, the appeal is allowed."
"Mr. Nazki states that the plaintiffs-respondents should be permitted to lead additional evidence, if any, on the basis of the documents now produced by the defendants. We accept the request. The Plaintiff shall lead additional evidence, if any, before the defendants are given an opportunity to lead evidence to rebut the evidence produced by the plaintiff."