Indian Legal System > Civil Laws > The Code of Civil Procedure > Order VII Rule 14
All plaints, petitions, applications and documents including application for leave to sue in forma paupris shall be presented by the plaintiff, petitioner applicant, defendant or respondent in person or by his duly authorized agent or by an advocate duly appointed by him for the purpose, at the filing counter. All such documents filed in Court shall be accompanied by an index in duplicate containing their details. The amounts of Court-fee affixed or paid on any such document shall also be indicated in the index. Sufficient number of copies of the plaint, petition or application shall also be filed for service on the opposite party. In this article, we shall discuss Order VII Rule 14
Order VII Rule 14: Production of document on which plaintiff sues or relies:
- Where a plaintiff sues upon a document in his possession or power, he shall produce it in Court when the plaint is presented, and shall at the same time deliver the document or a copy thereof to be filed with the plaint.
- Where any such document is not in the possession or power of the plaintiff, he shall, where possible, state in whose possession or power it is.
- 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.
- Nothing in this Rule shall apply to document produced for the cross-examination of the plaintiff’s witnesses, or, handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.
Order VII Rule 14 is restricted in application to the documents which are either the basis of the claim or which relied upon by plaintiff for supporting his claim.
In Jetha ram v. Shaker Lal, AIR 2000 Raj 34 case, the Court observed that so far as the right of plaintiff to make use of document only for purpose of impeaching the testimony of a witness is concerned, such appear does not appear to be taken away by Rule 14 or 18 of Order VII.
Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 14 provides that where a plaintiff sues upon a document in his possession or power in support of his claim, he shall enter such document in a list, and shall produce it in Court when the plaint is presented by him and shall, at the same time deliver the document and a copy thereof to be filed with the plaint. This provision is a time saving step as it directs the plaintiff to file his document at the time of presentation of plaint and in case he fails to do that the same shall not be taken in evidence without the leave of the Court under Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 14. However, this rule does not empower the Court to deal with situation where, for special reasons, the plaintiff has failed to file a document with a plaint.
Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 14 provides that where any such document is not in the possession or power of the plaintiff, he shall, where possible, state in whose possession or power it is.
Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 14 thereof clearly provides that 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. When the Court in its discretion grant leave after production of such documents in the court, then the order of Court in this regard has to be speaking and reasoned.
In Mohanraj Rupchand Jain v. Kewalchand Hastimal Jain AIR 2007 Bom 69 case the Court held that nothing prevents the Court in its discretion to grant leave subsequent to the documents being produced before the Court even though such documents were not entered in the list annexed to the plaint. It would depend upon the facts of each case. Undoubtedly, the order of the Court in that regard will have to be a speaking and reasoned order.
Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 14 thereof provides that nothing in the said Rule shall apply to document produced for the cross-examination of the plaintiff‘s witnesses, or, handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.
Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 14 is similar to clause 2 of Rule 18 Order VII, which was omitted by Amendment Act 46 of 1999, a mistake appears to have crept into the Act 46 of 1999 whereas instead of defendant’s witness, the word plaintiff’s witness has been used in Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 14.
In Salem Advocate Bar Association Tamil Nadu v. Union of India, AIR 2005 SC 3353 case, the Supreme Court held that the words ‘plantiff’s witness’ should be read as ‘defendant’s witness’ till the legislature corrects the mistake . The Court observed “Order VII relates to the production of documents by the plaintiff whereas Order VIII relates to production of documents by the defendant. Under Order VIII Rule 1A(4) a document not produced by defendant can be confronted to the plaintiff’s witness during cross-examination. Similarly, the plaintiff can also confront the defendant’s witness with a document during cross-examination. By mistake, instead of ‘defendant’s witnesses’, the words ‘plaintiff’s witnesses’ have been mentioned in Order VII Rule (4). To avoid any confusion, we direct that till the legislature corrects the mistake, the words ‘plaintiff’s witnesses, would be read as ‘defendant’s witnesses’ in Order VII Rule 4. We, however, hope that the mistake would be expeditiously corrected by the legislature.”
Similar to Order VII Rule 14 is similar to the provision under the sub clause (3) of Rule 1 of the Order 13 of the Code. It lays down that the parties or their pleaders shall produce, at or before the settlement of issues, all the documentary evidence of every description in their possession or power, on which they intend to rely, and which has not already been filed in Court, and all documents which the Court has ordered to be produced. Being so, it cannot be disputed that if the plaintiff fails to mention the documents in the list annexed to the plaint and to place on record a copy of such document, which is required to be produced under the law at the time of filing of the plaint, the plaintiff is not entitled to produce any additional document thereafter, without the leave of the Court. The contention that such leave has necessarily to be obtained prior to the documents being placed on record, cannot be found fault with. Failure to produce document may result in rejection of plaint.
Conclusion:
When a plaintiff sues upon a document in his possession or power, he shall produce it in Court when the plaint is presented, and shall at the same time deliver the document or a copy thereof to be filed with the plaint. 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. Nothing in this Rule shall apply to document produced for the cross-examination of the plaintiff’s witnesses, or, handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory. In RDB Two Thousand Plus Ltd. v. Sarvideo, AIR 2000 Cal 107 case, the Court held that the question whether the document annexed to the plaint and averment made to that extent to the plaint is factually correct or not is the subject matter of the suit which cannot be decided at the initial stage of filing of plaint.