2022 (5) TMI 1680 - SCH - Indian Laws

Refusal to permit the appellant to produce additional documents in terms of Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - HELD 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. The orders passed by the trial Court and the High Court are set aside. The appellants defendant Nos.2 to 5 are permitted to file the documents and to prove the same in accordance with law - Appeal allowed.

Summary

The Supreme Court of India, through Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian, allowed the appeal filed by defendant Nos. 2 to 5 against the High Court's affirmation of the trial Court's refusal to permit production of additional documents under Order VIII Rule 1, CPC. The Court held that both lower courts "have gravely erred in law" by denying permission to file relevant documents despite some delay, emphasizing that "rules of procedure are hand-maid of justice." The Court ruled that instead of outright rejection, the trial court should have imposed costs. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appellants were permitted to file and prove the documents in accordance with law. Further, the plaintiffs were allowed to lead additional evidence based on these documents, maintaining procedural fairness. Pending applications were disposed of.