CRP(MD)/2518/2026 of Narayani Ganesh Vs Dr.Jayalakshmi Shreedhar on 22 September 2026

O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the common order passed in I.A.Nos.3 and 4 of 2026 in O.S.No.52 of 2023, dated 21/08/2026, by the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Kodaikanal, Dindigul District.

2. The suit in OS No.52 of 2023 was filed by the petitioner/plaintiff seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with and encroaching upon the suit property. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the father of the petitioner was a renowned actor and was the owner of an extent of 3.41 acres of land, which he had purchased under a registered sale deed in the year 1961. Thereafter, he executed four separate settlement deeds in favour of his daughters. Under one such settlement deed, an extent of 56 cents was settled in favour of the plaintiff, while an extent of one acre was settled in favour of the defendants in the very same property.

3. It is further contended by the petitioner that from the date of execution of the settlement deeds in the year 2004 till the year 2023, both parties were peacefully enjoying their respective properties without any obstruction or interference. However, in the year 2023, taking advantage of the absence of the petitioner, the respondents attempted to encroach upon the petitioner's property. Hence, the petitioner was constrained to institute the suit in OS No.52 of 2023 for permanent injunction. The defendants entered appearance and filed their written statement. Initially, the 1st defendant was represented through counsel and subsequently, from the beginning of the year 2026, she appeared in person. The trial had commenced and the plaintiff's evidence was almost completed. When the matter was posted for the defendants' evidence, the defendants filed I.A.Nos.3 and 4 of 2026 under Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking leave of the Court to receive and mark certain documents, including documents relating to the e-mail communications exchanged between the parties. The grievance of the petitioner is that the defendants had not disclosed the said documents in their written statement and had not pleaded anything with regard to the documents now sought to be introduced in evidence. According to the petitioner, the defendants are attempting to introduce an additional defence by producing documents at the stage of their evidence. It is further contended that the trial Court permitted the defendants to mark the documents without affording an opportunity to the petitioner to file his counter. The documents were thereafter marked during the defendant's evidence, which, according to the petitioner, is contrary to the procedure contemplated under law and is liable to be set aside.

4. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following judgments:- (a)In Shri Ramesh Kumar and another, Vs. Smt Sangeeta Khanna, decided in C.M.(M) No.8 of 2014, dated 06/01/2014 by the High Court of Delhi, wherein it has been held in paragraphs 6, 7, 9, 11, 14 and 16 as follows:- “6.Although neither the application before the Trial Court nor the impugned order makes specific reference to the provision, the instant matter is to be governed by the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1A(3) of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("Code"). The said provision reads as under: 1A.Duty of defendant to produce documents upon which relief is claimed or relied upon by him (1) Where the defendant bases his defence upon a document or relies upon any document in his possession or power, in support of his defence or claim for set off or counter claim, he shall enter such document in a list, and shall produce it in Court when the written statement is presented by him and shall, at the same time, deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the written statement.

(2) Where any such document is not in possession or power of the defendant, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose possession or power it is.

(3) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the defendant under this rule, but, is not so produced shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit..

(4) Nothing in this rule shall apply to documents- (a)produced for the cross-examination of the plaintiff's witnesses, or (b)handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.

7. Thus, it is evident that the application of the petitioner to file additional documents is one to be tested on the touchstone of Order VIII Rule 1A (3) of the Code. The said provision, which was added to the Code by way of an amendment in 1999, provides that the appropriate time for filing a document in support of a defendant's defence is when the Written Statement is filed. It provides that as a matter of rule, a document that is not produced alongwith the Written Statement or entered in the list filed with the Written Statement ought to not be received in evidence without the leave of the Court. 8......

9. This Court too through a learned Single Judge of this Court cautioned against lightly ignoring the mandate of Order VIII rule 1A(3) in Y. N. Gupta v Jagdish Chander Sharma & Anr., (CM(M) No. 1199 of 2009): "Even unamended Civil Procedure Code gave a specific procedure for filing of pleadings and documents and the circumstances under which additional documents could be filed by parties. All documents were supposed to be filed by the parties along with pleadings. The documents not in power and possession of the parties were required to be mentioned in a list and against each document it was to be mentioned in whose possession it is, if it has been lost or how the document is sought to be proved in the court. This procedural requirement was necessary so that trial proceeds in an orderly manner and both the parties know each others' case and the documents relied upon by them. Only those documents could be withheld by the parties which they intended to put in cross-examination to the witnesses. The additional documents could be produced by the parties only where despite, due diligence and effort, the party could not lay hand on any of those documents or the documents were not within the knowledge of the party and they were discovered later on by the party during pendency of the trial. The court before allowing the additional documents was to be satisfied not only about the relevancy of documents but also about the reasons as to why the documents could not be filed at the initial stage either along with the plaint or along with written statement. The amendments which were made by the Parliament from time to time in Code of Civil Procedure and other laws were made after observing the working of the Code and after considering that there was need to change the law. These statutory amendments cannot be ignored or thrown to winds by the courts because in one or the other case, they are to the disadvantage of a party. Disadvantage of an individual cannot be a ground to ignore the statute. Statutory provisions are made for general application and to give certainty to the law. If the law remains uncertain, it becomes a hay day for the parties to twist the law and that is why it is necessary that the procedural aspects of the law also must be settled and should not be considered so lightly that the courts have liberty to ignore the procedural aspects whenever and wherever they like. No doubt, procedure is hand maid of justice but what is justice cannot be a concept and idea of an individual judge. Justice has to be looked from the broader prospective. If a judge is given discretion to decide applications without following procedure, as laid down by Parliament, that will result into total chaos and would breed contempt for law and infuse corruption."(Emphasis supplied) 10....

11. That a document that is not filed at the appropriate stage shall not be received by the Court is a principle that the Supreme Court emphasised in Madan Lal v Shyam Lal, (2002) 1 SCC 535. This principle has been followed qua applications under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) by this Court in Aligarh Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. v Parvinder Khanna, (judgement dated 30th August, 2010 in CM(M) No. 1085 of 2010) and Durga Devi v Lalita Rakyan, (judgement dated 9th September, 2010 in CM(M) No. 1141 of 2010). 12....

14. For exercise of discretion by the Court under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) of the Code in favour of a defendant, the defendant would have to satisfy the court to the following qualifying criteria:

i) that the documents were earlier not within the knowledge of the party; or

ii) that the documents could not be produced despite exercise of diligence on the part of the defendant.

15. In yet another case a similar view was held by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Dr. J. K. Jain v Krishnaram Baldeo Investment & Finance Co. Ltd., (judgement dated 14th August, 2008 in CM(M) No. 217 of 2008), where it was observed: "The Court may permit the production of such documents only on showing sufficient cause. In the present case, the documents sought to be produced by the petitioner later on were not such which were not in the power of the petitioner or could not have been obtained by the petitioner. The petitioner had not made any reference to these documents in the written statement neither filed a list of documents relied upon. I find no reason as to why the court should allow filing of such documents at a belated stage when the petitioner is not able to satisfy the court about the relevancy of these documents and reasons for not filing the same with the written statement or before framing the issues."

16. The impugned order has clearly set out that the

petitioner has failed to provide sufficient and cogent reasons for allowing the documents to be filed. It was not the case of the petitioner before the Trial Court that the documents were not within his power, nor has the petitioner made out any case of exercise of diligence, despite which the documents could not be filed. To the contrary, the impugned order observes the lack of diligence on the part of the petitioner, as the documents had not been filed for a period of eleven years from date of filing of the Written Statement and not even adverted to in the evidence filed later. The only explanation proffered by the petitioner is inadvertence, which cannot be regarded as a ground for exercise of discretion under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) - a view echoed by a judgement of a learned Single judge of this Court in Harkesh Singh & Anr. v Ved Raj, (order dated 2nd February, 2010 in CM(M) No. 945 of 2007).

(b) In Shri Harkesh Singh and another Vs. Shri Ved Raj, decided in CM(MD)No.945 of 2007, dated 02/02/2010, by the High Court of Delhi, wherein it has been held in paragraph 4 as follows:- “4.In the present case, the petitioners had not filed the documents along with the WS neither filed a list of documents stating that the documents were relied upon by them but were not in their possession. The only ground stated by the petitioners is that due to inadvertence they did not file the documents. Inadvertence is no ground for allowing an application for production of documents at the stage of evidence. I find no force in the petition. The petition is hereby dismissed.”

(c) In M/s.Bollineni Developers Ltd., Vs. Sailendra Kumar and others, decided in OSA No.59 of 2023, dated 05/03/2024 by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madras, wherein it has been held in paragraphs 7, 7.1, 9 and 10 as follows:- “7.It is trite law that it is a matter of discretion vested with the Court to accept or reject an application to receive additional documents. It is for the applicant to demonstrate that the non-production of documents earlier, was only in view of valid and sufficient reasons and secondly, the application must be bonafide and thirdly, the evidence that is sought to be introduced, must have a bearing on the issues and must be such so as to assist the Court in rendering justice. The power to accept additional documents cannot be used in a routine fashion nor can one claim it as a matter of right to do so, would defeat the very purpose of the amendments brought in to the CPC to expedite the judicial proceedings / trial. In this regard, it may be useful to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bagai Construction Thr. its proprietor Mr.Lalit Bagai vs. Gupta Building Material Store [(2013) 14 SCC 1] which was also relied upon by the learned Judge, while passing the order impugned herein.

The relevant portion of the said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is extracted below for ready reference: “12.Further, it observed that the evidence should be permitted in exercise of its power under Section 151 of the Code. The following principles laid down in that case are relevant : (K.K. Velusamy case para 19) “19. We may add a word of caution. The power under Section 151 or Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code is not intended to be used routinely, merely for the asking. If so used, it will defeat the very purpose of various amendments to the Code to expedite trials. But where the application is found to be bona fide and where the additional evidence, oral or documentary, will assist the court to clarify the evidence on the issues and will assist in rendering justice, and the court is satisfied that non- production earlier was for valid and sufficient reasons, the court may exercise its discretion to recall the witnesses or permit the fresh evidence. But if it does so, it should ensure that the process does not become a protracting tactic. The court should firstly award appropriate costs to the other party to compensate for the delay. Secondly, the court should take up and complete the case within a fixed time schedule so that the delay is avoided. Thirdly, if the application is found to be mischievous, or frivolous, or to cover up negligence or lacunae, it should be rejected with heavy costs.”

7.1. A reading of the above extract would show that the onus is on the party seeking leave of the court to let in additional documents to demonstrate that the delay was only in view of adequate and sufficient cause; and the failure to furnish reasons explaining the delay in producing the documents would prove fatal to his/her request for filing of additional documents. 8....

9. Yet another reason why we find that the order of the learned Judge does not warrant interference, is that the documents, which are now sought to be produced, were available with the appellant, even while filing the written statement and they were also conscious of the relevance of these documents inasmuch as both sides have alluded to these documents at great length in their pleadings. The attempt made by the appellant to now introduce the said documents is only to protract the proceedings and hence, lacks bona fides.

10. That apart, the failure to furnish reasons explaining the delay in producing the documents by itself would prove fatal. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant to suggest that the appellant may be imposed with costs and that, procedures are hand-maid of justice, overlooks the fact that imposition of costs is not a panacea for accepting the documents even at a belated stage of the suit under all circumstances. The least that is expected from the appellant, who intends to seek / crave leave of the court to file additional documents, is to explain the reason for the delay. Thus, having failed to even explain the reasons for the delay, which is well within the knowledge of the appellant, the application for receiving additional documents was rightly rejected by the learned Judge.

(d) In Bank of Baroda Vs. Gujarat Cables and Enamelled Products Pvt. Limited, decided in Writ Petition No.11329 of 2022, dated 10/11/2022 by the High Court of Bombay, wherein it has been held in paragraphs 18 and 19 as follows:- “18.In consideration of the facts stated above, in my view, sheer "inadvertence" or "oversight", would not furnish or constitute 'reasonable cause' for granting leave under Rule 10 of Order 11 of CPC as applicable to the Commercial Suits. For all these reasons, I hold that trial Court has not committed error in the exercise of the jurisdiction while refusing the leave. Question is answered accordingly.

19. In the result, petition is dismissed, with no order as to cost. Rule is discharged.”

(e) In N.P.Lakshmanan and others Vs.R.Ranganathan, decided in CRP(PD)No.706 of 2015, dated 03/01/2018, by the High Court of Madras, wherein it has been held in paragraphs 9 to 11 as follows:- “9.As per Order VIII Rule 1-A(1) of C.P.C., when the defendant files the written statement, he must give a list of documents relied on by him and file the same into Court along with the certified copies. As per Order VIII Rule 1- A(3) of C.P.C., the defendant can file document subsequent to filing of the written statement with the leave of the Court. The Court has power to grant leave at any stage of the suit. But the said discretionary power must be exercised judicially and the reasons to be recorded. As per Order VIII

Rule 2 of C.P.C., the defendant must raise in the written statement all his defence.

10. In the present case, the petitioner has not pleaded about the documents in the written statement now sought to be filed and marked. The learned Judge considering Order VIII Rule 1-A and Rule (2) of C.P.C. has rightly dismissed the application. There is no irregularity or illegality warranting interference by this Court with the order of the learned Judge dated 13.10.2014.

11. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.”

(f) In Murugan Vs. Ayyanar, decided in CRP(PD)No.696 of 2015, dated 03/01/2018 by the High Court of Madras, wherein it has been held in para 12 to 14 as follows:- “12.In the present case, the respondent has not furnished any list of documents relied on by him and he has not filed any documents or copy of the documents along with the written statement. In respect of the registered Will executed by Kullammal, he has not given the date of the Will. He has not stated who is in possession of the sale deed dated 28.07.1914, by which according to the respondent, Kullammal purchased the property and the registered Will dated 12.07.1925 alleged to have been executed by Kullammal. Even now the respondent has not stated that who is in possession of the above documents. The respondent has also not stated the reason for his inability to produce the original documents and reason for seeking to mark the certified copies of the documents.

13. As per the Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) of C.P.C., with leave of the Court, the defendant can file the documents relied on by him, which were not filed or a list was given along with written statement. The said power of the Court is only discretionary power. The said power has to be exercised judicially and leave can be granted for special reason to be recorded. The learned Judge failed to consider Order VIII Rule 1-A(1) and (2) of C.P.C. and allowed the application on the ground that the petitioner has right to object the marking of the documents. The learned Judge failed to consider the fact that the respondent has come out with the present application after first defendant was examined as D.W.1 and was cross- examined. The respondent has also not given any reason for not obtaining the certified copies of those documents earlier and not filing the same earlier along with the written statement or before examining D.W.1. The learned Judge failed to consider the contention of the petitioner that the respondent has come out with the present application only to fill in lacuna as D.W.1, who is father of the respondent, admitted in his cross-examination that Kullammal has nothing to do with the suit property and has referred to the Will dated 03.12.1980 executed by one Krishnammal and that he was claiming title based on the

two sale deeds of the year dated 1961 and 1962. It is pertinent to note that the first defendant has adopted the written statement filed by the respondent. In view of the above facts, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent has come out with the present application only to fill in lacuna, has considerable force. The learned Judge failed to exercise the discretionary power judicially and the reason given by the learned Judge is not valid.

14. For the above reason, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The impugned order of the learned Judge dated 24.09.2014 is set aside and I.A.No.579 of 2014 is dismissed. If the certified copies of the documents mentioned in the petition were already marked, the learned Judge is directed to return the same to the respondent. As the suit is of the year 2008, the learned Judge is directed to dispose O.S.No.142 of 2008 as expeditiously as possible, in any event, not later than, three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.”

(g) In L.Gajalakshmi and others Vs. D.Sathish Kumar, decided in CRP(PD)Nos.2911 and 2921 of 2018, by the High Court of Madras, wherein it has been held in para 7 to 10 as follows:- “7.However, as could be seen from the conduct of the defendants, it is seen that at the time of filing of their written statement, they had not placed any document along with the same in support of their case and accordingly, proceeded with the trial thereupon. Such being the position, when thereafter as abovenoted, the matter had been adjourned to several dates for enabling the defendants to produce their evidence and the defendants had been taking time after time in placing the evidence in support of their case and also sought time for producing the documents and even thereafter, when they had been granted opportunity to place their evidence, inasmuch as they had failed to appear on 09.03.2018, it is seen that the Court below had rightly closed their evidence, considering the delay tactics adopted by the defendants in the prosecution of the matter.

8. In the light of the above position, when as per Order VIII Rule 1-A CPC, the defendants are required to produce the documents, which they rely upon and in their possession and power in support of their case along with the written statement and also the abovesaid Rule mandates that the defendants should deliver the original documents or the copy of the same along with their written statement and also the Rule mandates that if all the documents are not in their possession or power of the defendants, they are also required to state in whose possession or power they are available and in such view of the matter, when it is found that the defendants had filed the written statement without producing any document along with the same, accordingly, proceeded with the matter further, accordingly, it is found that the defendants had not chosen to rely upon any document with reference to their defence. In such view of the matter, when according to the defendants, thereafter when they require or felt that certain documents are essential for their defence version, if the said endeavour of the defendants is genuine and bonafide, while filing the applications with reference to the same, they should have come forward with the cause as to where the documents, which they now seek to rely upon, were available, whether they were in the custody of the defendants or elsewhere and also should give a cause as to why they had not endeavoured to produce the said documents at the time of filing of their written statement and as abovenoted, when they had not mentioned in the written statement as to in whose possession or custody, the abovesaid documents now relied upon were available, in such view of the matter, when as per Order VIII Rule 1-A (3) CPC, the defendants, if they had failed to produce the documents, which they rely upon along with the written statement and thereafter, intend to rely upon certain documents, they cannot be allowed to produce the said documents at the hearing of the suit on their behalf without the leave of the Court and therefore, unless the Court permits, the defendants cannot be permitted to rely upon the new documents, which they seek to produce and for seeking the permission of the said Court with reference to the same, as rightly contended by the respondent/plaintiff in the counter, the defendants should have given the reasons as to what prevented them from filing the documents now they rely upon, while filing the written statement and as to whether in whose custody or power, the said documents were available at the time of the filing of the written statement or at least they should have averred that the documents now they seek to rely upon, had come to their knowledge only after the filing of the written statement from a particular source. However, when with reference to the same, there is no whisper at all in the petitions preferred by the defendants other than stating that they had wrongly noted the hearing date as 15.03.2018 instead of 09.03.2018 and in such view of the matter, when the defendants have not given any cause at all worth acceptance for entertaining the request to reopen the evidence of DW1 and permit them to mark the documents as prayed for, the Court below is wholly justified in rejecting their applications with reference to the same.

9. As rightly determined by the Court below, even in the petitions filed by the defendants above stated in I.A. No. 4574 of 2018 & 4575 of 2018, the defendants are not clearly as to what for they had filed the abovesaid applications and accordingly, they are unable to give any clear reasonings as to why they had not chosen to file the documents now they rely upon along with their written statement and with reference to the same, no whisper at all has been made by the defendants in their applications. Such being the position, when the defendants are mandated to file all the documents in their power and possession at the time of filing of the written statement itself and on the other hand, the defendants having not done so and thereafter very belatedly having proceeded to produce certain documents in support of their case, at least, should have endeavoured to give a just cause with reference to the same for enabling the Court to accept their case, however, when no cause at all had been given by the defendants for the reception of the documents now they seek to rely upon and furthermore, when as above discussed, the defendants had been given ample opportunity to adduce their evidence on several adjournment dates and despite the same, the defendants having not cared to produce their evidence in the manner known to law and on the other hand, without any sufficient reason or cause, had come forward with the applications above stated, as rightly determined by the Court below, the above applications preferred by the defendants are nothing but a ruse the delay the proceeding endlessly, so as to cause irreparable loss and hardship to the respondent.

10. In so far as this matter is concerned, when there is already an order of the Court to conclude the trial within a time frame work, it is the bounden duty of one and all including the defendants to dispose of the suit at the earliest point of time. However, the conduct of the defendants would only go to expose that they are hell bent upon to delay the proceedings one way or the other and accordingly, had not chosen to present the applications by giving proper reasons and cause for reopening the matter and recalling DW1 and marking the documents through DW1 and in such view of the matter, I do not find any error or mistake in the impugned order of the Court below in dismissing

the

applications

filed

by

the petitioners/defendants. If these type of applications are entertained by the Court below, there will be no end to the civil action and the parties would endeavour to file applications to applications with a view to cause the delay inordinately, so as to deprive the other party from reaping the fruits of the decree that may be passed in their favour. Resultantly, no valid reason is made out warranting interference with the impugned order of the Court below. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, are closed.”

(h) In G.Amsaveni Vs. R.Kannan and others, decided in CRP No.1816 of 2019, dated 14/02/2020 by the High Court of Madras, wherein it has been held in paragraphs 13 and 14 as follows:- “13.No doubt, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, the parties are only expected to plead material facts in concise in their plaint or written statement and they need not plead the evidence to be let in during trial. In the instant case, a perusal of the pleadings in the written statement would go to show that there is absolutely no pleading that the 2nd respondent was admitted in the hospital at the time when the alleged agreement of sale is stated to have been executed. It is also the settled law that without pleading no amount of evidence could be allowed to be let in. Therefore, the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner reported in Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana, MANU/SC/0047/1988 : 1988(4) SCC 534; Amal Kumar v. Bhupinder Singh, 1976 PL J 26; and M. Kokila v. A. Dhanalakshmi, MANU/TN/0944/2014 : 2014(4) CTC 805 would not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand.

14. Even though all the documents in question were available with the petitioner, they had not chosen to produce the same along with the written statement and only after the commencement of trial, they had come forward with the application under revision without any proper and valid reason. The court below without considering all the aspects discussed above has mechanically allowed the application merely holding that that it was an application only to condone the delay in the production of the documents and the genuineness of the same could be permitted to be proved during trial. Thus, the order impugned in this revision is not legally sustainable and as such, the same requires interference at the hands of this court. This civil revision petition succeeds accordingly. In the result, this civil revision petition is allowed and the order dated 04.02.2019 made in I.A. No. 1 of 2019 in O.S. No. 565 of 2013 by the learned V Additional District Judge, Coimbatore, Coimbatore District is set aside and the application in I.A. No. 1 of 2019 is, accordingly, dismissed. Considering the fact that the suit is pending since 2013 and the trial is underway, the court below is directed to proceed with the trial and dispose of the same within a period of six months from the date receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected CMP is closed.”

(i) In Bharat Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana and others, decided in Civil Appeal No.1193 of 1984, dated 13/09/1988 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein it has been held in paragraph 12 as follows:- “12.As has been already noticed, although the point as to profiteering by the State was pleaded in the writ petitions before the High Court as an abstract point of law, there was no reference to any material in support thereof nor was the point argued at the hearing of the writ petitions. Before us also, no particulars and no facts have been given in the special leave petitions or in the writ petitions or in any affidavit, but the point has been sought to be substantiated at the time of hearing by referring to certain facts stated in the said application by HSIDC. In our opinion, when a point which is ostensibly a point of law is required to be substantiated by facts, the party raising the point, if he is the writ petitioner, must plead and prove such facts by evidence which must appear from the writ petition and if he is the respondent, from the counter-affidavit. If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not annexed to the writ petition or to the counter, affidavit, as the case may be, the court will not entertain the point. In this context, it will not be out of place to point out that in this regard there is a distinction between a pleading under the Code of Civil Procedure and a writ petition or a counter- affidavit. While in a pleading, that is, a plaint or a written statement, the facts and not evidence are required to be pleaded, in a writ petition or in the counter-affidavit not only the facts but also the evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded and annexed to it. So, the point that has been raised before us PG NO 1060 by the appellants is not entertainable. But, in spite of that, we have entertained it to show that it is devoid of any merit.”

(g) In Reserve Bank of India Vs. K.Kumar Deshraj, decided in CRP(PD)No.564 of 2025, dated 04/07/2025 by the High Court of Madras, wherein it has been held in paragraphs 9 to 14 as follows:- “9.It is settled law that there can be no amount of evidence adduced by a party without a pleading. It is seen and also rightly found even by the Trial Court, the defendant has not even whispered, muchless pleaded about the Domestic Enquiry Report in the written statement. In Ponnayal Alias Lakshmi Vs. Karuppannan (Dead) through Legal Representative Sengoda Gounder and Another, reported in (2019) 11 SC 800, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when the documents were not part of the pleadings in the suit and no issue was also framed regarding the said documents, the documents are not necessary, as the suit cannot be permitted to travel beyond the pleadings. In Siddik Mahomed Sha Vs. Mt.Saran and others, reported in (1929) SCC Online Privy Council 79, the Privy Council held that no amount of evidence can be looked into upon a plea which was never putforward. The said ratio is followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhagatsingh Vs. Jaswant Singh reported in (1961) SCC Online SC 254; Chinta Lingam and others Vs. Governmetn of Tamil Nadu and others, reported in 1970(3) SCC 768 and Ram Sarup Gupta (Dead) by Lrs Vs. Bishun Narain Inter College and Others, reported in (1987) 2 SCC 555.

10. In the case of H.RAmachandra Rao Vs. A.Mohideen, reported in 2000-1.LW. 420, this Court held that if the affidavit does not disclose any reason for not taking the defence earlier, then the Court was justified in rejecting the Application. This Court also held that while granting leave, the Court will have to consider the stage of the suit, delay on the part of the party seeking leave and the hardships, the other party will be put to. In Manohar Prasad and others Vs. Prasad Productions Private Limited Rep. By its Managing Director A.Ramesh Prasad, reported in (2018) SCC Online Mad 7100, this Court held that even for permitting the defendant to file additional written statement, the Court has to consider whether the permission can be granted or refused only on the basis of the reasons adduced in the Application.

11. Now reverting to the affidavit filed by the respondent/defendant in I.A. No.5 of 2023, it is seen that the petitioner merely states that earlier Application in I.A. No.3 of 2023 was dismissed with liberty to exhibit the Domestic Enquiry proceedings and that the failure on his part to file the document along with the written statement was neither willful nor wanton and that the document is material for adjudication of the suit. Except the above, I do not find any sufficient or satisfactory reasons to permit the reception of the said documents.

12. Firstly, the request of the defendant to file an additional written statement has been rejected and the same has become final. Even in the Application filed in I.A. No.3 of 2023 seeking a direction to the plaintiff to produce the domestic enquiry report, the Trial Court has found that the objection of the plaintiff that the defendant is protracting the proceedings cannot be brushed aside. It formed the foundation for the Court to dismiss the Application in I.A. No.3 of 2023. No doubt, the Trial Court had observed in I.A. No.3 of 2023 that the plaintiff has already produced the entire file of the Departmental proceedings and the same been marked as Ex.P9 to P21, even before this Court (in the original side) and that copy of the same has also been furnished to the defendant and the Court has only observed that if at all the defendant wants to exhibit the said domestic enquiry report and he can always mark the copy of the domestic enquiry report which has been furnished to the defendant, after ensuring its accuracy.

13. The prayer in the present Application is to receive the oral enquiry proceedings conducted by the plaintiff against the defendant. Admittedly, the said oral enquiry proceedings which is now sought to received by the defendant pertains only to certain hearings viz., Hearing Nos.4, 5, 11, 16, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24 and 25, the document is also not sought to be received in entirety. Such a document cannot be received in part and in any event, as found even by the Trial Court, there is absolutely no pleadings made by the defendant in the written statement regarding the said oral enquiry proceedings which have in any event, culminated in a final enquiry report. Therefore the Trial Court ought to have refused permission to the respondent/defendant instead of allowing that the Application, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. I do not see how the refusal to entertain such a truncated document would result in avoiding multiplicity of proceedings. Moreover, the petitioner/defendant having not backed up the contents of the document even in the pleading, as consistently held by the, Privy Council, Hon'ble Supreme Court and our Court, the party cannot be allowed to let in any evidence in the absence of pleading regarding such evidence. Therefore, I am inclined to interfere the order of the Trial Court and set aside the order dated 10.01.2025 in I.A. No.5 of 2023 in O.S. No.6782 of 2025 passed by the learned V Additional District Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

14. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed. No costs.”

(k) In Pune Bar Association Vs. UOI, decided in WP(Civil)No. 599 of 2026, dated 22/05/2026, by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein it has been held in paragraphs 3 and 4 as follows:- “3.Electronic record is a unique species of evidence which is liable to continuous mutation and modification affecting its authenticity, integrity and intrinsic evidentiary value. Challenges to admissibility and probative value of electronic records are further accentuated with the advent of artificial intelligence and deepfake technology. Such fast and varied transformation in technology necessitated reviewing the erstwhile Evidence Act and the BSA was enacted. Statement of objects and reasons for enacting the BSA inter alia emphasises: “(ii) it provides for admissibility of an electronic or digital record as evidence having the same legal effect, validity and enforceability as any other document;

(iii) it seeks to expand the scope of secondary evidence to include copies made from original by mechanical processes, copies made from or compared with the original, counterparts of documents as against the parties who did not execute them and oral accounts of the contents of a document given by some person who has himself seen it and giving matching hash value of 2 The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 original record will be admissible as proof of evidence in the form of secondary evidence.”

4. To achieve such objective, Section 63(4) of BSA improved upon the certificate envisaged under the old law by mandating the issuance of a standard-form certificate prescribed in the Schedule which inter alia requires the disclosure of hash value of the electronic/digital record along with a further certification by an expert. Hash value of an electronic data is synonymous with an electronic fingerprint and provides a sure way of identifying and verifying digital data. The necessity of incorporating the hash value of the electronic record in the certificate is thus to ensure its authenticity and integrity, and cannot be said to lack a rational nexus with the object of the Act. Similarly, certification by an expert in Part B provides an additional layer of authenticity to the secondary electronic evidence. For these reasons, we are of the considered view that the new provision has a clear and rational nexus with the object of the law and cannot be said to be either arbitrary or unreasonable so as to suffer from the vice of manifest arbitrariness.”

(l) In Dukhan Rai Vs. Mahendra Raj and others, reported in (2007)3 PLJR 8, wherein it has been held in paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 as follows:-

7. From a plain reading of the aforesaid provision, it

is evident that where defendant bases his defence upon a document or, relies upon any document in his possession or power, in support of its case, he is required to enter such document in a list, and produce it when the written statement is presented by him and deliver document and copy thereof with the written statement. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 1-A of Order VIII, inter alia provides that a document which ought to be produced in Court by the defendant under sub-rule (1) shall not without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence at the hearing of the suit. Power to grant leave having been conferred, it is obvious that discretion has been conferred on the Court to receive in evidence such documents, not produced in terms of sub-rule

(1) of Rule 1-A of Order VIII of the Code. Hence it cannot be said that in no circumstance the documents on behalf of the defendants can be received at the hearing of the suit. Deletion of Order XVIII Rule 17A of the Code of Civil Procedure does not bar production of evidence at a later stage. In my opinion, the Court has in built power to permit party to produce evidence, not known to them earlier or which could not be produced in spite of due diligence Court, on its satisfaction that after exercise of due diligence, the evidence was not within the knowledge of the party or could not be produced may permit leading of such evidence at a later stage on such conditions as may appear to be just. This power which is inbuilt has expressly been conferred under Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

8. Bearing in mind the principle aforesaid when I

proceed to examine the facts of the present case, I am of the opinion that the court below did not err in rejecting the prayer of the petitioners. It is not the case of the defendants that the documents which were produced later on were not known to them earlier or were not produced in spite of due diligence. The court below has held that the defendants have not shown good cause for non-production of the documents earlier given in the second list of documents. The afore-said conclusion does not suffer from any error and hence the order impugned is not fit to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Thus the petitioners succeed in law but fail on fact.

9. In the result, I do not find any merit in the application and it is dismissed accordingly, but no order as to costs.”

5. Therefore, it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the burden is upon the party seeking leave to produce additional documents to establish sufficient cause for the delay in producing such documents. According to the learned counsel, unless the delay is properly explained, the application cannot be mechanically allowed and the Court is required to consider the reasons stated for the belated production of the documents. In view of the above circumstances, the the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner prays for setting aside the impugned order of the trial court, by allowing the civil revision petition.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the documents sought to be produced were already referred to and explained in detail in the written statement. It was further submitted that since the respondents were not in a position to secure the documents earlier, there was a delay in producing them and therefore, they filed the application seeking leave of the Court to produce and mark the said documents. It was contended that mere marking of a document does not amount to proof of the contents thereof and that the petitioner would have every opportunity to cross-examine the respondents and disprove the documents and the evidence sought to be relied upon.

7. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the judgment in the case of Levaku Pedda Reddamma and others Vs. Gottumukkala Venkata Subbamma and another, reported in 2022 Supreme(SC) 1492, wherein it has been held in para 6 as follows:- “6.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 document itself.”

8. It is also contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that mere receipt or marking of a document does not amount to proof of the contents thereof. The objections raised by the opposite party regarding the admissibility, relevancy and proof of the documents can be considered by the trial Court at the appropriate stage. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents prays for the dismissal of the civil revision petition.

9. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

10. The question that arises for consideration is whether the impugned common order permitting the respondents to produce and mark the documents warrants interference in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.

11. Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure enables the Court to grant leave for the production of documents that ought to have been filed along with the written statement, but were not so produced. However, such discretion must be exercised judicially, having regard to the reasons assigned for the delay, the relevance of the documents, the stage of the proceedings and the prejudice, if any, that may be caused to the opposite party.

12. In N.P.Lakshmanan and others Vs. R.Ranganathan and Murugan Vs. Ayyanar, this Court emphasised that the discretion under Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) of the Code must be exercised upon consideration of the pleadings and the reasons for the belated production of the documents. Similarly, in M/s.Bollineni Developers Ltd. Vs. Sailendra Kumar and others, this Court reiterated that the party seeking permission must establish sufficient cause for the delay and that the power to receive additional documents cannot be exercised routinely.

13. At the same time, in Levaku Pedda Reddamma and others Vs. Gottumukkala Venkata Subbamma and another, reported in 2022 Supreme (SC) 1492, the Hon'ble Supreme Court underscored that procedural rules are intended to advance justice and that delay alone would not invariably justify refusing permission to produce relevant documents. The Court must consider whether the request is bona fide and whether any prejudice to the opposite party can be suitably addressed.

14. Further, mere delay in producing the documents cannot, by itself, deprive a party of an opportunity to place all the relevant pleadings and materials before the Court. Unless the Court, upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, finds that party has adopted dilatory tactics or that the application, is otherwise devoid of merit, the party ought to be afforded a reasonable opportunity to produce the documents. The Court is required to consider the matter independently on its merits and the application cannot be dismissed solely on the ground of delay.

15. In the present case, the petitioner mainly objects to the production and marking of the documents on the ground that they were not disclosed in the written statement and that the respondents are attempting to introduce a new defence at the stage of their evidence. The respondents, however, contend that the documents were referred to in their written statement and that they could not be secured earlier.

16. It is necessary to distinguish between permission to receive a document, its admissibility in evidence and proof of its contents. Mere receipt or marking of a document does not, by itself, establish the truth of the facts stated therein or confer upon it any automatic evidentiary value. The evidentiary worth of the document must be determined in accordance with law. Therefore, the mere fact that the documents have been permitted to be received or marked would not preclude the petitioner from challenging their admissibility, relevancy, genuineness and proof. The petitioner is also entitled to cross-examine the respondents in respect of the documents and to raise all legally permissible objections at the appropriate stage.

17. It is also noticed that some of the documents sought to be marked appear to be Xerox copies. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the originals would be produced wherever necessary. The trial Court shall, therefore, independently consider the admissibility and relevancy of each document, in accordance with law, before relying upon the same. Insofar as the e-mail communications and other electronic records are concerned, the trial Court shall examine the requirements governing their admissibility and proof under the law applicable to the pending proceedings. The Court shall also consider whether the documents relate to the issues arising from the pleadings and whether they are sought to establish any matter that has not been pleaded.

18. It is made clear that the permission to produce or mark the documents shall not be construed as permission to introduce a new defence beyond the scope of the pleadings. All objections raised by the petitioner shall be duly recorded and considered by the trial Court at the appropriate stage, without being influenced by the observations made in this order.

19. In view of the above circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order permitting the respondents to produce and mark the documents does not warrant interference at this stage. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all objections relating to the admissibility, relevancy, genuineness and proof of the documents and the trial Court shall consider the same independently and in accordance with law.

20. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with the above observations and directions. The trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial and dispose of the suit expeditiously, uninfluenced by any of the observations made herein. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition, if any, is closed.

22.09.2026 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No er To, The District Munsif-Cum-Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kodaikanal, Dindigul District.

R.POORNIMA, J. er

CRP(MD)No.2518 of 2026 and CMP(MD)No.12577 of 2026 22/09/2026