Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010222602024 2025:GAU-AS:896 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/434/2024 THE ASSAM COMPANY LIMITED AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGER, GREENWOOD TEA ESTATE, P.S. LAHOAL, P.O. NAGAGHULI, DIST. DIBRUGARH, ASSAM, PIN- 786012. 2: THE MANAGER GREENWOOD TEA ESTATE P.S. LAHOAL P.O. NAGAGHULI DIST. DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN- 786012 VERSUS PRAKASH CHANDRA SAIKIA S/O- LATE SARBESWAR SAIKIA, R/O- VILL.- GARPORA KONWAR GAON, P.O. GARPORA (DIKOM), P.S. ROHMARIA, DIST.- DIBRUGARH, ASSAM, PIN- 786101. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A SARMA, MR B KAUSHIK,MR. K KALITA,MS G SWAMI Advocate for the Respondent : MRS. S ROY, MS F N ZAMAN Page No.# 2/6 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER Date : 28.01.2025 Heard Mr. B. Kaushik, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mrs. S. Roy, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Correctness or otherwise of the order, dated 05.08.2024, passed by the learned District Judge, Dibrugarh in Title Suit No. 02/2023, is challenged in this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, by the petitioners, namely, the Assam Company Limited and its Manager. 3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order, dated 05.08.2024, the learned District Judge, Dibrugarh in Title Suit No. 02/2023 had allowed the petition No. 1837/24 filed by the plaintiff/respondent herein under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act to issue notice to the defendants/petitioners herein and third parties for submission of originals of the 25 numbers of documents exhibited by him in support of his case. 4. Mr. Kaushik, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that in the Title Suit No. 02/2023, pending before the learned District Judge, Dibrugarh, the plaintiff/respondent had filed a petition, No. 1837/24, under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act to issue notice to the defendants/petitioners and third parties for submission of originals of the 25 numbers of documents exhibited by him, in support of his case and the learned District Judge has allowed the said petition without considering the fact that nothing has been mentioned about the said documents in the plaint. Mr. Kaushik further submits that at a belated stage Page No.# 3/6 the learned District Judge has allowed the petition and thereby allowed the respondent herein to fill up the lacuna of the case misconstruing Order XI of the CPC. Mr. Kaushik also submits that the learned District Judge has failed to consider the provision of Order VII Rule 14 of CPC while passing the impugned order. Therefore, Mr. Kaushik has contended to allow the petition. 5. Per contra, Mrs. Roy, the learned counsel for the respondent, has supported the impugned order passed by the learned District Judge. Mrs. Roy submits that the order so passed by the learned court suffers from no illegality or impropriety requiring interference of this court. Mrs. Roy also submits that the respondent has filed the suit in person and that he is not acquainted with the relevant provisions of CPC and that mere defect in the procedure would not defeat the cause of justice and therefore, Mrs. Roy has contended to dismiss the petition. 6. Having heard the submission of learned Advocates of both sides, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also perused the impugned order, dated 05.08.2024, passed by the learned District Judge, Dibrugarh in Title Suit No. 02 of 2023. Also, I have gone through the provision of Order XI Rule 14 and Order VII Rule 14 CPC. 7. It is to be noted here that Order XI Rule 14 of the Code of Civil procedure deals with ‘Production of Documents’ — which read as under:- “It shall be lawful for the Court, at any time during the pendency of any suit, to order the production by any party thereto, upon oath of such of the documents in his possession or power, relating to any matter in question in such suit, as the Court shall think right; and the Court may deal with such documents, when produced, in such Page No.# 4/6 manner as shall appear just.” 8. It is also to be noted here that Order VII Rule 14 provides for production of documents which read as under:- “ Production of document on which plaintiff sues or relies (1) Where a plaintiff sues upon a document or relies upon document in his possession or power in support of his claim, he shall enter such documents 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. (2) Where any such document is not in the possession or power of the plaintiff, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose possession or power it is. (3) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the plaintiff when the plaint is 1presented, 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. (4) 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.” 3 Having heard learned counsel and upon evaluating the objection of the State of Nagaland, we see no reason to disallow the production of the maps. 9. In the case in hand, admittedly, the documents referred by the respondent here in were not in his possession. The objection of the petitioners herein is basically that the said documents were not mentioned in the plaint. But, the facts remains that the respondent as plaintiff had submitted all documents in Page No.# 5/6 support of his case, as photostat copy, with the plaint. And though he had not taken any step under Order XI yet he had sent notice to the defendants for making available the original copies. It is also to be noted here that the respondent herein has instituted the suit in person and that he is not a legally trained person acquainted with the provisions of CPC. Only at the time of cross- examination of the witnesses, when objection was raised in exhibiting the photostat copies that the plaintiff/respondent came to know about the technicalities. 10. It also appears that the learned District Judge, Dibrugarh had considered all these facts and circumstances while allowing the petition. The learned District Judge was basically weighed by two facts, firstly, that the respondent here is not a legally trained person and that he is a laymen unaware of filing a petition under Order XI of CPC, and secondly the procedures are handmaid of justice and the procedural rules are to be interpreted in such a way to promote fairness and to uphold right of the parties. The learned District Judge also relied upon a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of The State of Assam vs. Union of India reported in AIR 2018 Supreme Court 3446, referred by the respondent herein. In the said case, Hon’ble Supreme Court has allowed the applicant i.e. the State of Assam, to produce documents which were not in the possession of the applicant. 11. In the case of HDFC Bank Ltd & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors. in Writ Petition (Civil) No.1159 of 2019, dated 30.09.22 Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that: “It could thus be seen that the principle of ex debito justitiae has been emphasized. This Court held that no Page No.# 6/6 man should suffer because of the mistake of the court. No man should suffer a wrong by technical procedure of irregularities. It has been held that the rules of procedure are the handmaidens of justice and not the mistress of justice. It has further been held that if a man has been wronged, so long as the wrong lies within the human machinery of administration of justice, that wrong must be remedied.” 12. In the case in hand, having examined the reasons, so assigned by the learned court for allowing the petition No. 1837/2024, in the light of the submission of learned Advocates of both sides and also in the light of facts and circumstances on the record, and further considering the relevant provisions of law i.e. Order XI Rule 14 and also Order VII Rule 14 provides, this court is of the view that the impugned order dated 05.08.2024 appears to be not illegal or arbitrary requiring any interference of this court. 13. Under the given facts and circumstances on the record, I find no merit in this petition and accordingly, the same stands dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant