- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Mt. Taibunnissa Begum v. Jagdip Pandey
Structured Summary of the Opinion (Dawson Miller, C.J.)
Factual and Procedural Background
The plaintiff obtained a decree against one Mr. Mackenzie and, in execution of that decree, certain property alleged to belong to Mr. Mackenzie was sold; the plaintiff purchased the property at the execution sale. Subsequently, the defendants instituted proceedings under Order 31, rule 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), seeking to have that sale set aside on the ground that they were the sole parties interested in the property and that Mr. Mackenzie was not the proprietor. The defendants succeeded in those proceedings.
The plaintiff then brought the present suit against the defendant Jagdip Pande (who had brought proceedings under Order 21, rule 100) and others, seeking to recover possession of the property. At trial the plaintiff established title and disproved the defendants' title; judgment was pronounced for the plaintiff and that decision was upheld on appeal.
The sole ground of the appeal to the lower appellate court was that the learned Munsif had improperly rejected certain documentary evidence tendered by the defendants at a late stage. Issues were framed on 14 April and, under the relevant CPC rules, documentary evidence in the parties' possession or power ought to have been produced at the first hearing (on or before 14 April). After several adjournments, the hearing began on 29 May; on that date the defendants produced the documents in question, which the learned Munsif rejected as not having been produced earlier. The District Judge (first appellate court) affirmed the Munsif's ruling. A second appeal to Mr. Justice Boss resulted in a decision that the Munsif had improperly rejected the documents and remanded the case for retrial after taking the excluded evidence. The present appeal under the Letters Patent was brought from that decision.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the learned Munsif properly exercised his discretion in rejecting documentary evidence produced at a late stage of the proceedings contrary to the obligations in Order 13 (rule 1 and rule 2) of the CPC.
- Whether the appellate judge (Mr. Justice Boss) was correct to interfere with the Munsif's exercise of discretion by remanding the case for retrial and admitting the previously excluded documents.
- How the principles established in precedent (as cited in the opinion) and the distinction between public documents and other documentary evidence apply to late production of documents under Order 13 of the CPC.
Arguments of the Parties
Defendants' Arguments
- The documents tendered on 29 May (a letter purportedly written by Mr. Mackenzie and counterfoils of rent receipts) had been used and filed by the defendants in earlier proceedings under Order 21, rule 100, in which the defendants were successful; therefore the documents were not fabricated for the present suit.
- Because those documents had existed prior to the institution of the present suit and both parties had been parties to the earlier proceedings, their prior existence and prior exhibition were relied on as a ground to excuse late production at the first hearing.
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the plaintiff's specific legal arguments about the admissibility of the late documents.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Taleswar Singh v. Bhagwan Das | Permits, in some circumstances, the late production of public documents or records of judicial proceedings where genuineness is beyond suspicion; distinguishes between preventing fraud by late production and allowing formal public documents to be produced later. | The court relied on the principle but limited its scope: it held that the exception for un-suspect public documents should not be pushed too far. Because the documents in the present case were not public documents and their genuineness was not of the same character as public records, the court declined to apply the exception from Taleswar Singh to permit late admission merely because the documents had been used in earlier proceedings. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court analyzed the issue primarily through the text of Order 13 of the CPC (specifically rule 1 and rule 2). It recited the mandatory nature of rule 1, which obliges parties to produce all documentary evidence at the first hearing of the suit, and rule 2, which provides that no documentary evidence in the possession or power of any party that should have been produced earlier shall be received at a subsequent stage unless good cause is shown to the satisfaction of the Court, with reasons recorded.
From the language of rule 2 the court concluded that the rule "gives no discretion to the Court to receive evidence at a later stage" unless "good cause is shown to the satisfaction of the Court" — that is, the rule is precise and excludes late documentary evidence unless good cause is shown. The court acknowledged that the strict rule might work hardship in some cases and described a limited tendency in authorities to enlarge the scope of the rule where no prejudice would arise and where the documents' genuineness was beyond question.
The court examined the precedent Taleswar Singh v. Bhagwan Das and identified its underlying principle: public documents or records beyond suspicion may, in some cases, be produced late because genuineness is not in question and no prejudice likely results. However, the court emphasized that this principle should not be extended beyond such cases.
Applying these principles to the present facts, the court observed:
- The documents tendered on 29 May were not public documents; they consisted principally of a letter said to be signed by Mr. Mackenzie (deceased) and counterfoils of rent receipts.
- The only explanation offered for the late production was that such documents had been exhibited in earlier Order 21, rule 100 proceedings, implying they were not fabricated. The mere prior existence of documents was not, in the court's view, in itself sufficient to constitute "good cause" for not producing them at the first hearing.
- When the application to admit the documents was made to the learned Munsif, "no cause apparently of any sort was shown" on the record; the record only discloses that the documents were tendered and rejected, and the learned Vakil could give no assistance as to what may have been shown to the Munsif.
- Given the absence of any statement on the record of the reasons offered to the Munsif, it was possible that the Munsif had good reasons (from the documents themselves or something stated in Court) for rejecting them — perhaps because the principal document suggested an attempt to set up a different state of facts or something indicative of potential impropriety. The court found it impossible, on the record before it, to determine the exact worth of the documents as evidence.
Concluding from these points, the court was "not prepared to say that the Munsif exercised a wrong discretion" in rejecting the documents and considered that there was not a sufficient basis for this Court to interfere with that discretion. Therefore the court held that the decision of Mr. Justice Boss (who had remanded the case for retrial after admitting the excluded documents) should be set aside and the decree of the Subordinate Judge affirming the Munsif's decision should be restored.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The appeal is ALLOWED in the sense that the decision of the judge below (Mr. Justice Boss) remanding the case for retrial and admitting the excluded documents is set aside; the decree of the Subordinate Judge affirming the Munsif's rejection of the late-produced documents is restored.
Consequences on the parties:
- The Subordinate Judge's decree affirming the Munsif's exclusion of the documents stands restored.
- The appellant is awarded the costs of this appeal and the costs of the appeal to Mr. Justice Boss (i.e., the appellant is entitled to costs of both appeals mentioned in the opinion).
Broader implications: The opinion applies and clarifies the strict operation of Order 13 (rule 1 and rule 2) of the CPC — late documentary evidence will not be received except where good cause is shown to the satisfaction of the court; the exception for documents whose genuineness is beyond doubt (e.g., certain public documents) remains limited and should not be broadened unduly. The opinion does not announce any new legal principle beyond its application of existing rules and the cited precedent to the facts of this case.
Judge Mullick concurred. The final line of the opinion records: "Appeal allowed."
Dawson Miller, C.J:— This is an appeal under the Letters Patent from a decision of Mr. Justice Boss overruling the decree of the lower Courts and remanding the case for retrial after the admission of certain evidence which was rejected by both the lower Courts.
2. The plaintiff obtained against one Mr. Mackenzie a decree and in execution of that decree sold certain property alleged to belong to Mr. Mackenzie and in the execution Bale the plaintiff purchased the property sold.
3. Subsequently the defendants instituted proceedings under Order 31, rule 100 of the CPC claiming to have the sale set aside on the ground that they were the sole parties interested in the property and that Mr. Mackenzie was not the proprietor at all. In those proceedings the defendants succeeded. The plaintiff thereupon brought the present suit against the defendant Jagdip Pande who had brought the proceedings under Order 21, rule 100 and certain other persons who are apparently joint with him in estate claiming to recover possession of the property from the defendants.
4. The plaintiff succeeded in establishing her title to the property and in disproving the defendants' title and judgment was pronounced in her favour by the trial Court and on appeal that decision was upheld.
5. The only ground upon which the appeal was preferred was that the learned Munsif before whom the case came for trial had improperly rejected certain evidence tendered by the defendants at a late stage of the case. It appears that the issues in the suit were framed on the 14th April and under the rules in the Code of Civil Procedure all documentary evidence of every description in the possession or power of the parties ought to have been produced at the first hearing which was either on or before the 14th April. Labor applications were made for adjournment of the hearing and it was not until the 29th May that the actual hearing of the suit commenced and on the following day arguments were heard and judgment was delivered on the 31st. On the 29th May the defendants produced the document in question and the learned Munsif rejected them on ground that they ought to have been produced at an earlier stage.
6. On appeal, the District Judge upheld the ruling of the Munsif being of opinion that he was perfectly justified in rejecting the documents tendered at that late stage of the proceedings.
7. From that decision a second appeal was preferred to this Court and the matter came before Mr. Justice Boss. The learned Judge was of opinion that the Munsif had improperly exercised his discretion in rejecting the documents in question and remanded the case for re-trial by the Munsif after taking the evidence which had been excluded.
8. From that decision the present appeal under the Letters Patent is brought by the plaintiff. I ought to mention here that the documents which were tendered in evidence on the 29th May were first of all a letter which purported to have been written by Mr. Mackenzie who, I understand, is now dead and certain counterfoils of rent receipts in connection with the property the subject-matter of dispute. These had been used by the defendants and filed before the Judge in the proceedings under Order 21, rule 100 in which the defendants were successful, and the-only possible ground upon which it could be suggested that the defendants had good cause for not producing their documents at the proper time would be that these documents had been in existence before the suit was instituted and therefore there was no pressing necessity for producing them at the very first moment and that this in itself was sufficient cause for inducing the Court to admit the documents at a later period. In considering this question it is necessary to bear in mind exactly what the law is on the subject as laid down in Order 13 of the CPC. I have already referred to the first rule of that Order which makes it obligatory upon the parties to produce all their documentary evidence at the first hearing of the suit. Rule 2 of the same Order provides that no documentary evidence in the possession or power of any party which should have been but has not been produced in accordance with the requirements of rule 1 shall be received at any subsequent stage of the proceedings unless good cause is shown to the satisfaction of the Court for the non-production thereof and the Court receiving any such evidence shall record the reasons for so doing. It will be observed that rule gives no discretion to the Court to receive evidence at a later stage than that mentioned in the previous-rule unless good cause is shown to the satisfaction of the Court for the non-production thereof. The rule is precise and excludes all documentary evidence produced at a late period unless good cause is shown for its non-production. That rule has been found perhaps in some cases to work a certain amount of hardship and the tendency has no doubt been to endeavour to some extent ab all events to enlarges the scope of the rule by allowing the late production of documents in cases where it is quite obvious that no prejudice would arise to the other party by their late production and where the genuineness of the documents sought to be admitted is beyond all question. In the case of Taleswar Singh v. Bhagwan Das (1) the learned Judges of the Calcutta High Court pointed out that whilst it is for the Court of first instance to decide whether the documents which ought to have been mentioned in the original list or ought to have been produced earlier were not so produced for good and sufficient reasons, at the same time the object of the legislature in enacting this rule was to prevent fraud by the late production of suspicious documents and not to shut out formal evidence beyond suspicion such as certified copies of public document or records of judicial proceedings. In that case although it would appear that no valid excuse had been proved for not producing documents of that nature at the first hearing of the suit nevertheless the Court allowed the production of public documents at a later period either before or at the actual hearing. The principle relied upon in that case, however, must not, in my opinion, be pushed too far. It seems to me that decision may be justified upon the ground that where you have a public document which clearly is one beyond all suspicion as to its authenticity and which can be procured at any time by either party that fact may in itself be sufficient cause for not producing the document at the earliest stage, because unless some prejudice is suffered by the other side by its late production, which of course would be sufficient to exclude it, it seems fairly obvious that the other party can suffer no harm by its late production because the genuineness of the document is beyond question; and therefore as I say that fact may in itself be quite sufficient excuse or sufficient cause for the non-production of the document in the first instance. In the present case, however, the documents which it is now sought to have admitted after trial and which the defendants asked to have admitted at a late stage in the proceedings are not documents of that nature. They are not public documents. The principal document is a letter said to be signed by Mr. Mackenzie himself which it is said will have a material bearing on the question in dispute in this case and the only ground upon which it has been suggested that there was good cause for non-production of that and of the other documents is that those documents were in fact exhibited in the proceedings under Order 21, rule 100 and therefore it must be presumed that they at least were not fabricated for the purposes of the present case. Further it is said that both parties were aware of these documents because in the previous proceedings both the plaintiff and the defendants bad also been parties. I am not prepared to say that the mere fact that a document has been in existence for some length of time before the proceedings were instituted is in itself sufficient good cause for allowing the documents to be produced at a later stage of the proceedings. When the application was made to the learned Munsif no cause apparently of any sort was shown why the documents should be admitted and what exactly were the grounds which induced the learned Munsif to reject these documents we have now no means of determining. The learned Vakil can give us no assistance upon that point and all we know from the record of the case is that the documents were tendered and rejected. It many well be, in the absence of any proof as to the cause which was shown for their late production, that the Munsif had very good reasons either from a perusal of the documents themselves or from something which may have been stated to him in Court for rejecting these particular documents, and in fact so far as we can judge for ourselves the principal document in the case is one which indicates something if not exactly a fraud something which would indicate a desire to setup a different state of fact from those which were actually existing. What the exact worth of these documents may be as evidence it is impossible for us to determine but having had the documents produced, an advantage which my learned brother who heard the second appeal in this Court and from whose judgment this appeal is brought, had not, I certainly am not prepared to say that the Munsif exercised a wrong discretion in rejecting them at the stage at which they were tendered. No real cause has, to my mind, been made out why they should necessarily be accepted and in these circumstances it does not appeal to me that it is right that this Court should interfere with the discretion which in all probability, and as far as one can judge from the circumstances disclosed, was a perfectly proper discretion on the part of the Mansif. I think that the decision of the learned Judge under appeal should be set aside and the decree of the Subordinate Judge affirming that of the Munsif should be restored. The appellant is entitled to her costs of this appeal and of the appeal to Mr. Justice Boss.
9. Mullick, J.:— I agree.
10. Appeal allowed.
Alert