Mohd. Shamim, J.@mdashThis is an application by the defendant under Order 13, Rule 2 and Section 151 of the CPC for permission to place on record the documents annexed with the application.
2. It has been urged for and on behalf of the defendant that while going through the record the Counsel for the defendant to his dismay and horror found that certain very important and material documents such as, the correspondence exchanged in between the parties, the minutes recorded during inspection at the site of work and the documents regarding the work got done at the risk and cost of the plaintiff had not been filed Along with other documents. The said documents could not be filed inadvertently earlier as different files were being maintained with regard to the work which was to be done by the plaintiff. The plaintiff failed to complete the work. Hence the work which was assigned to the plaintiff was got done through a third party. Consequently the files relating to the work in question were being maintained at different offices of the defendant, including their Finance Department, Project Department, Gurgaon Office, etc. Some of the officers of the defendant who had been directly involved with the project were transferred out of station and other officers took over in their places who were not familiar with all the files. Consequently the new officers were never aware of the documents which were proposed to be filed. It has thus been prayed that the said documents be taken on record now.
3. The application has been opposed, inter alia, on the following grounds: that the application is highly belated inasmuch as the suit in the instant case was filed in January, 1995. The evidence of the plaintiff has almost been recorded. The application has thus been filed after four years. The alleged documents are neither material nor relevant for the purposes of the present case. It has thus been prayed that the application be rejected.
4. Learned Counsel for the defendant has contended that the impugned documents could not be filed earlier as the officers of the defendant who were connected with the project in question were later on transferred and new officers took over in their place. They were as such not aware of the importance and relevance of the documents which are now sought to be filed through the present application. The work in the instant case could got be completed by the plaintiff as they terminated the contract. Hence the work was not done through a third party. Consequently different files were maintained in connection with the present case. Hence all the documents were not in one file and they were scattered. As such, they were not readily available as a corollary whereof the documents could not be filed earlier.
5. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff Mr. Raman Kapur, on the other hand, while countervailing the said argument has contended that the impugned documents were not filed intentionally by the defendant though the same were within their knowledge. The application is highly belated inasmuch as the suit was filed in January, 1995 and the issues were framed on February 26, 1996. The impugned documents are neither relevant nor material. Hence it will serve no useful purpose in case the same are taken on record. The learned Counsel thus wants that the present application be rejected by this Court.
6. I have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and have very carefully examined their rival contentions and have given my anxious thoughts thereto.
7. Since we are concerned with the construction of the provisions of Order 13, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the same can be adverted to with profit. It reads as under : "2(1) 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." A close scrutiny of the provisions alluded to above would reveal that the only condition precedent for taking the documents on record subsequent to the framing of issues is only in those discerning few cases where a party is in a position to show a good cause for not filing them earlier. Thus the Court, it is manifest from above, is under no obligation to examine the relevance of the documents at this stage when they are proposed to be filed. The same is to be examined later on when they are sought to be proved through witnesses. Thus the Court at this stage is only concerned with the fact as to whether a particular party who proposes to file the documents at a later stage is in a position to make out a good case for their failure to file the same prior to the framing of issues.
8. Thus the contention of the learned Counsel for the plaintiff, in view of the above, that the impugned documents are neither relevant nor material and hence cannot be taken on record at this stage is without any substance and I need not dwell on the same any further.
9. The defendant have given out a good number of reasons for their inability to file the said documents earlier. According to the learned Counsel for the defendant the said documents could not be filed earlier as the plaintiff failed to complete the project within the time allotted to them. Hence the work was assigned to a third party and got completed through the said party. Consequently they were compelled to maintain different files. Thus all the relevant documents were not in one file and could not be filed earlier.
10. The next reason given by learned Counsel for the defendant is that the officers who were connected with the project in question were transferred to different stations. New officers took over at their places. They were not aware of the said documents. Hence the same could not be filed earlier. I do not see any reason to differ on this point from the learned Counsel for the defendant.
11. There is another aspect of the matter. I have also seen the impugned documents. They are quite relevant and material inasmuch as the same relate to minutes recorded during inspection at the site of work. There are other documents which are connected with the work done at the risk and cost of the plaintiff by a third party. Then there are certain letters exchanged in between the parties which are admitted by the plaintiff. Thus I am of the view that in case the said documents are placed on record the same will facilitate the disposal of the case.
12. In the above circumstances, the defendants are entitled to succeed. The application is allowed on payment of Rs. 3,000/- as costs. The documents in rebuttal, if any, be filed by the plaintiff within six weeks from today.
The application stands disposed of.
Suit No. 2 of 1995
List before the Joint Registrar on September 20, 1999, the date already fixed.
