Original documents to be produced at or before the settlement of issues:
(1) The parties or their pleaders shall produce on or before the settlement of issues, all the documentary evidence in original where the copies thereof have been filed along with plaint or written statement.
(2) The Court shall receive the documents so produced:
ADVERTISEMENTS:
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
ADVERTISEMENTS:
(b) Handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.] (Order XIII, Rule 1).
On every document so admitted in evidence in the suit there shall be endorsed: (a) the number and the title of the suit, (b) the name of the person producing the document, (c) the date on which it was produced, and a statement of its having been so admitted. The endorsement shall be signed by the judge. (Order XIII, Rule 4).
Image Source: andrews.edu
Where a document admitted in evidence in the suit is an entry in a letter-book or a shop-book or other account in current use the party may furnish a copy of the entry, and the court shall, after causing the copy to he examined, compared and certified, mark the entry and return the book to the person producing it. (Order XIII, Rule 5).
The court may reject as irrelevant or inadmissible any document after stating the grounds of rejection. The endorsement on the rejected document shall show the particulars in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Rule 4 above, together with a statement of its having been rejected, and bear the initial of the judge. (Order XIII, Rules 3 and 6).
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Late filing of documents—Validity of:
Where the documents were filed at a very late stage, held that such documents could not be admitted in evidence and the Court could refuse to accept it.
Impounding of Documents:
The court may for sufficient cause direct any document or book produced before it in any suit to be impounded for any period and kept in the custody of an officer of the court. (Order XIII, Rule 8).
Return of Admitted Documents:
The documents so admitted shall on application be returned to the party in a suit where the suit is one in which an appeal is not allowed after the suit has been disposed of and in a suit where an appeal is allowed after the appeal has been disposed of or after the expiry of the period of limitation, if no appeal has been filed.
The document may be returned at any time earlier if the person applying there for delivers to the proper officer for being substituted for the original—(i) in the case of a party to the suit, a certified copy, and (ii) in the case of any other person, an ordinary copy, which has been examined, compared and certified. (Order XIII, Rule 9).
The court may send for, either from its own records or from any other court, the record of any other suit or proceeding and inspect the same where such record is material to the suit and the applicant cannot without unreasonable delay or expense obtain a duly authenticated copy of the record. But the court will not use in evidence any document which under the law of evidence would be inadmissible in the suit. (Order XIII, Rule 10).
Non-production of documentary evidence—Cause shown whether ‘good cause’:
In civil suit for specific performance of agreement to sell, the defendant sought to produce certified copy of the order passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, registered sale deed and electricity bills. These documents were not produced at the relevant time before the settlement of the issues. The defendant said that the documents were given to a Law Graduate and he is trusted person, for producing it before the Court but he lost them and thereafter he had filed the applications after obtaining the certified copies.
Held that the said cause shown by the defendant could not be considered to be a ‘good cause’ as provided under Order XIII, Rule 2, CPC. Therefore, rejection of defendant’s application for producing documents before his evidence was recorded, did not amount to “material irregularity.”