[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Orissa High Court

Muralidhar Beura vs Reena Beura @ Lenka & Anr. ...... Opp. ... on 19 December, 2025

Author: Sashikanta Mishra

Bench: Sashikanta Mishra

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                       C.M.P. No.662 of 2024


    (An application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India)
                                  ---------------


      Muralidhar Beura                        ......       Petitioner



                                  -Versus-



      Reena Beura @ Lenka & Anr.               ......   Opp. Parties


      Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
      _______________________________________________________
        For Petitioner            : Mr. B.B. Mishra, Advocate

        For Opp. Parties        : Mr. A.C. Mohapatra, Advocate
                                                [For O.P. No.1]
           ___________________________________________

      CORAM:
                JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA


                                JUDGMENT

th 19 December, 2025 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

The Petitioner is Defendant No.1 in C.S.(1)

No.209 of 2007 pending in the Court of learned Civil

Judge (Jr. Division), 1st Court, Cuttack filed by the present

Opposite Party No.1-Plaintiff. Opposite Party No.2 is

Defendant No.2 in the said suit.

2. In the present application filed under Article 227

of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner challenges order

dated 06.03.2024 passed by the said Court in allowing an

application filed by the plaintiff to mark certain documents

as exhibits after closure of evidence in the case.

3. The facts, necessary only to decide the present

application are that the plaintiff has filed the suit for

declaration. The defendants are contesting the suit by filing

separate written statements. In course of hearing, the

plaintiff examined witnesses and several documents were

marked exhibits from her side. Defendant No.1 also

examined witnesses on his behalf and proved certain

documents, which were marked exhibits from his side. At

this stage, the plaintiff filed a petition on 22.09.2023 with

prayer to accept ten documents as mentioned in the

schedule to the petition and to mark them as exhibits from

her side. It is stated that the documents are public

documents being original and certified copies and are

relevant and have a bearing on the controversy between the

parties. The defendants filed objections stating that such

petition cannot be allowed at a belated stage, particularly

when the plaintiff has not explained as to why the

documents were not filed earlier. By the order impugned,

the Court below, after going through the documents held

that the same appeared to be vital, relevant and would

assist the Court in coming to a just decision and to decide

the real issue in controversy. Further, the defendants shall

also be given opportunity to rebut or question the

credibility of the documents. The petition was therefore,

allowed and the documents in question were directed to be

marked as exhibits.

4. Heard Mr. B.B. Mishra, learned counsel

appearing for the Defendant-Petitioner and Mr. A.C.

Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the Plaintiff-

Opposite Party No.1.

5. Mr. Mishra would argue that there is no

provision in the Code of Civil Procedure to accept

documents filed after closure of evidence. Moreover, the

documents sought to be exhibited were neither pleaded nor

mentioned in the list of documents relied upon in the

plaint. It is, therefore, evident that the plaintiff seeks to fill

up the lacuna in her case, which is not permissible. The

plaintiff has also not given adequate explanation for not

producing the documents earlier. In support of his

contention, Mr. Mishra has relied upon the judgments of

this Court passed in Pitani Sai Vs. Pitani Nagmani1 and

Sarat Chandra Mohapatra Vs. Narsingha Mohapatra2.

6. Per contra, Mr. Mohapatra would submit that the

Court has ample power to accept documents at a later

stage and admit them into evidence if the same are

considered necessary to decide the controversy between the

parties. Moreover, the documents sought to be exhibited

are all public documents, against which the defendants

have the opportunity to adduce rebuttal evidence.

7. The Code of Civil Procedure lays down the stage

and procedure for producing documents. Order XIII Rule 1,

being relevant is reproduced below:-

"1.Original documents to be produced at or before the settlement of issues- (1) The parties or their pleader shall produce on or before the settlement of issues, all the documentary evidence in original

2017 (I) OLR-873

2017 (I) OLR-633

where the copies thereof have been filed along with plaint or written statement.

(2) The Court shall receive the documents so produced:

Provided that they are accompanied by an accurate list thereof prepared in such form as the High Court directs.

(3) Nothing in sub-rule (1) shall apply to documents-

(a) produced for the cross-examination of the witnesses of the other party; or

(b) handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory."

8. If an extreme interpretation of the above

provision is made, there would be no scope for producing

documents subsequent to the settlement of issues.

However, the case at hand is one in which the prayer of the

plaintiff was not merely for production of documents but for

their reception in evidence. For this, Order VII Rule 14(3)

would be relevant which is quoted below:-

"(3) A. document which ought to be produced in Court by the plaintiff when the plaint is presented, or to be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint but is not produced or entered accordingly, shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit."

9. From a plain reading of the above provision, it

would be clear that a document can be produced at a later

stage but only with the leave of the Court. The Court is

thus vested with discretion in this regard. This implies that

if proper cause is shown to the satisfaction of the Court for

belated production of the documents, the same can always

be accepted. The Court can exercise its discretion in favour

of the party seeking the desired relief by citing some

justified reasons. The Andhra Pradesh High Court, while

dealing with a similar issue in Bada Bodaiah & Another

v. Bada Linga Swamy & Others3 held as follows:

"11. The provisions of Order VII Rule 14(3) were impliedly upheld. Even after amendment, the trial Court is vested with the discretion whether or not to permit the plaintiff to produce evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit."

10. In the instant case, the Court below has

specifically held that the documents appear to be vital,

relevant and would assist it in coming to a just decision

and in deciding the real issue in controversy. Further, it

has been observed that the defendants shall also be given

opportunity to rebut or question the credibility of the

documents. According to the considered view of this Court,

this is a reasonable ground for allowing the prayer of the

2003 (1) A.P.L.J. 141 (HC)

plaintiff. The defendants cannot claim to have been

prejudiced, as mere marking of the documents as exhibits

or admitting them at a belated stage does not take away