WP/13666/2020 of M/S EXPRESS CONSTRUCTIONS COMPANY Vs M MUJAHID ALI BAIG on 19 September 2026

ORAL ORDER

Captioned writ petition is filed by the plaintiff calling in question the order passed by the learned Trial Judge on I.A.No.6, whereby the application filed by the plaintiff seeking permission to produce an additional document, which was not filed along with the plaint, has been rejected. The learned Trial Judge has declined the application principally on the ground that the document is sought to be produced belatedly and further that the document does not bear the signature of the authorised person or the signatures of the persons to whom the alleged payments were made.

HC-KAR

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner- plaintiff and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents- defendants. Perused the impugned order and the material on record.

3. The plaintiff has instituted the suit seeking specific performance of the contract. In paragraph No.3 of the plaint, the plaintiff has specifically pleaded that the mother of the defendants had received the entire sale consideration of Rs.36,17,800/- as on 19.11.2003. In support of the said pleading, the plaintiff has furnished particulars of the payments allegedly made on various dates, aggregating to Rs.36,17,800/-. The document now sought to be produced contains, inter alia, an endorsement stated to have been made by defendant No.8, which according to the plaintiff would corroborate the payments referred to in paragraph No.3 of the plaint.

4. The application is opposed by the defendants principally on the ground that the plaintiff had neither asserted any right under the alleged agreement of sale nor disclosed the alleged payments in the earlier rounds of litigation and,

HC-KAR

therefore, cannot be permitted to introduce the document at this belated stage, particularly when the matter was posted for further cross-examination/continuation of the plaintiff’s evidence.

5. Having examined the pleadings, particularly the specific averments contained in paragraph No.3 of the plaint, this Court is of the considered view that the plaintiff cannot be shut out from placing the document on record merely on the ground that its evidentiary value is disputed by the defendants. The document now sought to be produced is sought to be relied upon in support of a specific plea already taken in the plaint with regard to payment of the alleged sale consideration. The objections raised by the defendants essentially relate to the genuineness, authenticity and evidentiary value of the document. These are matters which fall for consideration at the stage of appreciation of evidence and cannot, ordinarily, be conclusively determined at the threshold while considering an application for production of a document.

6. It is trite that mere marking or production of a document does not amount to proof of its contents. The

HC-KAR

plaintiff would necessarily be required to establish, in accordance with law, the execution, authenticity and evidentiary value of the document and, more importantly, prove that the amounts reflected therein were in fact paid to the mother of the defendants towards the alleged advance sale consideration under the agreement dated 04.04.1991.

7. Equally, the defendants cannot be prejudiced by permitting the document to be brought on record. The defendants would have full opportunity to question the plaintiff with regard to the circumstances in which the document came into existence, the alleged endorsement of defendant No.8, the absence of signatures thereon, the nature and purpose of the payments and the plaintiff’s failure, if any, to rely upon the document in the earlier proceedings. The defendants would also be at liberty to adduce rebuttal evidence to establish their specific defence that the payments relied upon by the plaintiff were made towards rent and not towards the sale consideration.

8. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the learned Trial Judge, while considering the application for production of

HC-KAR

the document, ought not to have undertaken an adjudication into its authenticity or evidentiary worth. The question as to whether the document is genuine, whether the endorsement is proved, whether the alleged payments were in fact made towards the sale consideration and whether the document inspires confidence are all matters which have to be adjudicated upon after the parties are afforded an opportunity to lead evidence and test the evidence of the opposite party in accordance with law.

9. The rejection of the document at the threshold, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, would deprive the plaintiff of an opportunity to rely upon material which is stated to be in support of an assertion already forming part of the plaint. Mere production of the document does not confer any advantage upon the plaintiff unless its contents and execution are duly established in accordance with law. Consequently, the apprehension of prejudice to the defendants can adequately be addressed by reserving their right to dispute and contest the document at the appropriate stage.

HC-KAR

10. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the view that the impugned order warrants interference in exercise of the jurisdiction of this Court. The document is liable to be received on record, subject, however, to the plaintiff establishing its execution, authenticity and contents strictly in accordance with law. All objections of the defendants touching upon the admissibility, genuineness, execution, evidentiary value and the circumstances surrounding the alleged payments are left open to be urged before the learned Trial Court at the appropriate stage.

11. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

ORDER

i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The order dated 06.03.2020 passed in O.S.No.9237/2013 by the XI Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-8), is hereby quashed and set aside.

iii. I.A.No.6 filed by the plaintiff shall stand allowed to the limited extent of permitting the plaintiff to produce

HC-KAR

the document on record, subject to proof and in accordance with law.

iv. The production of the document shall not, by itself, amount to proof of its execution, contents or authenticity. v. The defendants shall be at liberty to raise all permissible objections in respect of the said document and to contest the same in the course of cross- examination and by leading rebuttal evidence.

vi. All contentions of the parties on the merits of the document and the alleged payments are left open.

vii. The learned Trial Court shall proceed with the suit uninfluenced by any observations made herein.

Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20