[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/5 vs Manjit Singh on 18 March, 2026
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010051962026
2026:GAU-AS:3979
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : CRP(IO)/84/2026
HARMINDER PAL SINGH
S/O SRI SWARN SINGH, R/O WARD NO. 9, NORTH LAKHIMPUR, P.O. AND
P.S.- NORTH LAKHIMPUR, DIST- LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM-787001
VERSUS
MANJIT SINGH
S/O SRI SWARN SINGH, R/O WARD NO. 9, NORTH LAKHIMPUR, P.O. AND
P.S.- NORTH LAKHIMPUR, DIST- LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM-787001
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S K SINGH, MR. P SUNDI
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. D CHAKRABARTY,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI
ORDER
Date : 18.03.2026
Heard Mr. S K Singh, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. P Sundi,
learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D Chakraborty, learned counsel
for the respondent.
2. By way of the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioner assails the impugned order dated 21.02.2026 passed in
Page No.# 2/5
Title Suit No. 9/2023 (Sri Manjit Singh vs. Sri Harminder Pal Singh),
whereby the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), North Lakhimpur, rejected the
petitioner's application under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) of the CPC seeking leave to
bring additional documents on record.
3. The respondent, as plaintiff, instituted the aforesaid suit seeking
declaration of half share in the schedule land, partition of profits, permanent
injunction, and other consequential reliefs. The petitioner, upon entering
appearance, filed his written statement asserting exclusive ownership over the
suit land. It was specifically pleaded that the plaintiff's name was incorporated
in the sale deed only to fulfil the wishes of their ailing mother. The petitioner
further asserted that he had developed the land, constructed a house, and
established an authorised Maruti servicing center, which has been in operation
since 2002 without obstruction.
4. In support of his defence, several documents were annexed to the written
statement. During the course of cross-examination of PW-1, certain additional
documents having material bearing on the controversy came to light. Upon
tracing the said documents subsequently, the petitioner filed an application
under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) of the CPC seeking leave to bring them on record.
The Trial Court, however, rejected the said application, giving rise to the present
petition.
5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the documents
sought to be produced are directly connected with the defence already pleaded.
It is contended that the same could not be filed earlier as they were misplaced
and were traced only subsequently. It is further urged that the Trial Court
rejected the application without assigning cogent reasons and failed to exercise
its discretion in the manner mandated by law. Reliance is placed on Sugandhi
Page No.# 3/5
(Dead) by LRs vs. P. Rajkumar reported in (2020) 10 SCC 706 and
Levaku Pedda Reddamma vs. Gottumukkala Venkata Subbamma,
reported in 2022 Livelaw (SC) 533, to contend that procedural rules ought
not to defeat substantial justice.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner
had full knowledge of the documents and failed to produce them along with the
written statement as required under Order VIII Rule 1A(1) of the CPC. It is
contended that permitting such documents at the stage of evidence would
amount to altering the nature of the defence and would cause prejudice to the
plaintiff.
7. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for
the parties and perused the materials on record.
8. Order VIII Rule 1A of the CPC casts an obligation upon the defendant to
produce all documents relied upon at the time of filing the written statement.
However, sub-rule (3) carves out an exception by empowering the Court to
grant leave for production of such documents at a later stage. The provision,
thus, incorporates a degree of flexibility, enabling the Court to advance the
cause of justice where sufficient cause is shown.
9. The discretion under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) of the CPC is undoubtedly to
be exercised judiciously. However, it is equally well settled that procedural rules
are handmaids of justice and ought not to be applied in a manner that defeats
substantive rights. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Sugandhi (supra) has held that
where procedural violations do not cause serious prejudice to the adversary, the
Court must lean in favour of substantial justice. Similarly, in Levaku Pedda
Reddamma (supra), the practice of rejecting applications for production of
Page No.# 4/5
additional documents solely on the ground of delay has been deprecated.
10. In the present case, the documents sought to be brought on record
include registration certificates, licences, electricity records, loan documents,
and tax receipts, all of which prima facie relate to the petitioner's claim of
exclusive possession, development, and business activities on the suit land. The
explanation furnished by the petitioner, namely that the documents were
misplaced during cleaning and were subsequently traced, cannot be said to be
implausible or lacking in bona fides.
11. It is also significant that the application was filed at the earliest
opportunity during the cross-examination of PW-1 and prior to the
commencement of the petitioner's evidence. The respondent would have
adequate opportunity to meet the said documents and cross-examine the
petitioner thereon. In such circumstances, no irreparable prejudice can be said
to be caused to the respondent.
12. The contention that the documents are beyond the pleadings is equally
untenable. The petitioner has consistently pleaded exclusive ownership,
development of the land, and operation of business thereon. The documents
sought to be produced are in furtherance of the said defence and do not
introduce any new or inconsistent case.
13. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
learned Trial Court failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it in a judicious
manner. The impugned order dated 21.02.2026 is thus patently erroneous and
liable to be interfered with.
14. Accordingly, the impugned order stands set aside. The petitioner is
granted leave to produce the additional documents before the Trial Court on the
Page No.# 5/5
next date fixed. Upon such production, the Trial Court shall receive the
documents in evidence and proceed with the matter in accordance with law.
The respondent shall be afforded full opportunity to meet the said documents.
15. The petition stands allowed and disposed of in the above terms.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
