Supreme Court of India
STATE OF ASSAM versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. on 20 July 2018
[2018] 6 S.C.R. 593
STATE OF ASSAM
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
(IA No.80789 of 2017 in Original Suit No. 2 of 1988)
JULY 20, 2018
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A.M. KHANWILKAR ANDDR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order XI r. 14, Order VIIr. 14 – Production of documents-topographical maps – Boundarydispute between Assam and Nagaland – Production of certified copyof topo-sheets by a person concerned from Survey of India –However State of Assam sought production of some moretopographical maps – Objection raised by State of Nagaland thatleave for production of documents had been sought and grantedby this Court and production of additional documents cannot begranted at the present stage – Held: Documents were not in thepossession of the applicant and the earlier order of this Court willnot preclude the State of Assam from seeking production at thisstage – Production of the documents by the witness for the Surveyof India should be allowed in the interest of justice.
The issue pertains to production of topographical maps ina boundary dispute between Assam and Nagaland.
Disposing of the Interlocutory Application, the Court HELD: There is no reason to disallow the production ofthe maps. The evidence of PW 9 is being recorded. Productionof the documents by the witness for the Survey of India shouldbe allowed in the interest of justice. The documents were not inthe possession of the applicant and the earlier order of this Courtwill not preclude the State of Assam from seeking production atthis stage. However, it is clarified that the relevance oradmissibility of the documents is not dealt with. It would be opento the State of Nagaland to raise such objections as it is advised.[Para 3] [596-B-C]
593
A
B
CDE
FG
H
ACIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Interlocutory ApplicationNo.80789 of 2017 in Original Suit No. 2 of 1988.
Ashok H. Desai, K. N. Balagopal, Sr. Advs., Manoj Goel,Shuvodeep Roy. Dasarath Deka, P. Parmeswaran, Mohit D. Ram,G. Ramakrishna Prasad, Suyodhan Byrapaneni, Mohd. Wasay Khan,BMs. Filza Moonis, A. P. Mukund, Ms. Nitya Nambiar, Mohinder Saini,Jitender Saini, Visto Rio, Anil Shrivastav, Rituraj Choudhary, S. WasimA. Qadri, Ms. Binu Tamta, Ms. Bharati Tyagi, B. V. Balram Das, Advs.for the appearing parties.
CThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 1. The boundary disputebetween Assam and Nagaland forms the subject matter of the Suitbefore this Court. Recording of the evidence of PW 9 – Md.ShafiqurRahman of the Survey of India commenced on 30 January 2017. DuringDthe course of his examination on 31 January 2017, PW 9 produced certifiedcopies of 33 Topo-sheets. In the process of filing the relevanttopographical maps, the State of Assam seeks to cause the productionof some more maps.
2. On 2 July 2015, this Court allowed the production of certainEmaps. According to the State of Assam the maps are maintained in theHead Office of the Survey of India at Dehradun and are not within itspossession or control. During the course of the examination of PW9,the State of Assam, by its letters dated 24 February 2017, 7 March2017 and 6 April 2017 sought the production of certain topographical Fmaps. In response to the letter dated 6 April 2017, PW 9 sought toproduce the maps on 18 July 2017. However, this was objected to bythe State of Nagaland on the ground that since leave for the productionof documents had been sought and was granted by this Court, the witnesscannot be allowed to produce additional documents at the present stage.It is in view of the objection of Nagaland that the present application hasGbeen filed. The relief which has been sought is the production of themaps described in paragraph 4 of the application which is extractedbelow:
STATE OF ASSAM v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS[DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]
STATE OF ASSAM v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS[DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]
ASl.NoTopo Map Nos. & ScaleSl.NoTopo Map Nos. & Scale. . 1. 83G/13-(1 inch to a Mile) 5. 83G-(1 inch to 4 Miles) (1923) 2. 83J/6-(1 inch to a Mile) (1937) 6. 83J-(1 inch to 4 Miles) B3. 83J/9-(1 inch to a Mile) (1938) 7. 83N-(1 inch to 4 Miles) (1936) 4. 83J/13-(1 inch to a Mile) (1925)
C
Order XI Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides thus:
“14. Production of documents— It shall be lawful for the Court,at any time during the pendency of any suit, to order the productionby any party thereto, upon oath of such of the documents in hispossession or power, relating to any matter in question in suchsuit, as the Court shall think right; and the Court may deal withsuch documents, when produced, in such manner as shall appearjust.”
D
Order VII Rule 14 provides thus:
“Production of document on which plaintiff sues or relies E
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
(1) Where a plaintiff sues upon a document or relies upondocument in his possession or power in support of his claim, heshall enter such documents in a list, and shall produce it in Courtwhen the plaint is presented by him and shall, at the same timedeliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the plaint.
F
(2) Where any such document is not in the possession or powerof the plaintiff, he shall, wherever possible, state in whosepossession or power it is.
(3) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the plaintiffwhen the plaint is [1]presented, or to be entered in the list to beadded or annexed to the plaint but is not produced or enteredaccordingly, shall not, without the leave of the Court, be receivedin evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit.
G
H
A(4) Nothing in this rule shall apply to document produced for thecross examination of the plaintiff’s witnesses, or, handed over toa witness merely to refresh his memory.”
3. Having heard learned counsel and upon evaluating the objectionof the State of Nagaland, we see no reason to disallow the production ofBthe maps. The evidence of PW 9 is being recorded. Production of theabove documents by the witness for the Survey of India should, in ourview, be allowed in the interest of justice. The documents were not inthe possession of the applicant and the earlier order of this Court will notpreclude the State of Assam from seeking production at this stage. We,however, clarify that we have not dealt with the relevance or admissibilityCof the documents. It would be open to the State of Nagaland to raise such objections as it is advised to raise and all appropriate defences.
4. Subject to what has been stated above, the application forproduction is allowed. The Interlocutory Application shall accordinglystand disposed of.
D
Nidhi Jain
IA disposed of.
E
F
G
H