2025:JHHC:34338 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 837 of 2024 Shakuntala Mishra @ Shakuntala Misra, W/o Late Dr. Kamlakar Prasad Mishra, R/o 3, BC Road, Bistupur, P.O. & P.S. Bistupur, Dist. East Singhbhum now residing at 29, Kharkari Enclave, Sonari P.O. P.S. Sonari Dist. East Singhbhum ..... .... Petitioner Versus 1. M/s Kavee Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. represented by through its Director Sri Chandra Mohan Kapoor, S/o Late Kala Ram Kapoor, R/o Pee Pee Compound, P.O. & P.S. Hindpidi, District Ranchi 2. Smt. Nilima Pathak, W/o Late Krishna Kumar Pathak, R/o Flat No. 20, 5th Floor, 43 P.O. & P.S. Southern Avenue, District Kolkata 700029, West Bengal 3. Smt. Sushma Ojha, W/o Veda Prakash, Ojha Residence, 3/51 Kiran Khand, P.O. & P.S. Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow 226010, Uttar Pradesh .… …. Opposite Parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Mr. Shresth Gautam, Advocate Mr. Himanshu Harsh, Advocate For the Opposite parties : Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, Advocate Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Advocate Mr. Arpit Khandelwal, Advocate Mr. Rishav Raj, Advocate ------ Order No.08 / Dated : 13.11.2025. Petitioner is the substituted defendant no. 1 and is aggrieved by the order dated 13.06.2024 passed in Original Title Suit No. 579 of 2011, whereby and whereunder, a petition under Order VIII Rule 1A read with Section 151 of the CPC for leave to admit into evidence the documents not filed at the time of filing of written statement, has been rejected by the learned Trial Court. 2. Plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of contract with respect to the agreement to sell executed on 09.10.2005 with respect to the land as detailed in the schedule of the plaint. 3. Learned Trial Court rejected the petition on the ground that petitioner had failed to prove the relevancy of these documents and had also not filed the documents earlier along with the written statement which is the mandate of Order VIII Rule 1A of the CPC. Further, no reason was assigned for the delay in bringing these documents on record. 4. It is argued by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that document which was sought to be adduced into evidence the list of which along with copy of it has been annexed at Annexure-5 dated 21.02.2024. 2025:JHHC:34338 2 The list of documents is as under: - I. Agreement dated 19.04.2012 by Kaa Vee Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. has an agreement to sale to Naushad Alam. II. Photocopy of Circle Rate of 2010. III. Photocopy of Circle Rate of 2023. IV. Photocopy of documents of handing over of original documents to Late Dr. K.P. Mishra of M.S. Polytex Corporation by Bihar State Finance Corporation. V. Letter dated 14.08.2013 by Shahnawaz Ahmad (Advocate) to Sri G.P. Pandey. VI. Photo Copy of Certified copies of order dated 21.01.2013 passed in Title Suit No. 30 of 2003. VII. Certified copies of petition filed by Chandra Mohan Kapoor in Title Suit No. 30 of 2003. VIII. Certified copies of deposition of Girish Malhotra in Title Suit No. 30 of 2003. IX. Electronic Record with Certificate between Sri Girish Malhotra and Manoj Tiwari with approved fresh Agreement to sale. X. Photocopy of letter dated 04.05.06 sent by Sri S. Tiwari Advocate to Md. Shakil Ahmad, Advocate. XI. Carbon copy of Receipt Granted by Md Shakil Ahmad, Advocate dated 31.01.2007. XII. Carbon copy of receipt of list of Documents granted by Md. Shakil Ahmad, Advocate dated 02.06.09. XIII. Document of refund case no. 409 of 2008-09 through Sri Chandra Mohan Kapoor. 5. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that by the impugned order, relevant documents have been shut out mechanically by having recourse to Order VIII Rule 1A of CPC. 6. It is argued that the evidence of the plaintiff had just commenced, and the trial was at its inception and the documents, which the defendant /petitioner propose to bring on record, are relevant and have been referred to in the written statement in para 12. These documents are relevant to show that suit was barred by limitation. 7. It was agreed in the agreement to sell dated 09.10.2005 that the sale deed 2025:JHHC:34338 3 was to be executed after the suit property which was earlier mortgaged with the BSFC was redeemed and released. The suit property was released on 23.02.2006, photocopy of the document handing over original documents to Late Dr. K.P. Mishra of M/s Polytex Corporation, Bihar State Finance Corporation is one of the documents at Sl. No. 4 sought to be adduced into evidence. This document was also signed by the plaintiff - C.M. Kapoor to show that he was aware about the release of property on the said date. Although the said property was released, however, no step was taken in exercise of readiness and willingness for execution of sale deed and only after expiry of the period of limitation of three years, the suit had been filed in 2011. 8. It is further argued that during this interregnum, there has been substantial increase in the price of the suit property which will be evident from the documents referred to in Sl. Nos. 1, 2 and 3 which are the agreement entered into by the plaintiff with the third party for selling the suit property showing the consideration amount to be Rs. Ten Crore, whereas an agreement to sale entered into with the present petitioner is for Rs.1,20,00,000/-. Photocopy of circle rate in 2010 and 2023 is also proposed to be adduced into evidence to show the price escalation making the agreement to sell to have ended in frustration by the passage of time. This has also been stated by the defendant in para 19 of the written statement. The petitioner/defendant had also expressed his willingness to sell his property to the plaintiff on an increased rate for which correspondences were made and in evidence of it, electronic record with certificate between Girish Malhotra and Manoj Tiwari have been adduced which are at Sl. No. 9. Other correspondences have also been referred to at Sl. Nos. 10, 11 and 12. So far as the document at Sl. No. 13 is concerned, this is to rebut the pleading that the plaintiff had purchased the stamp paper and because of non- execution of sale deed, he had suffered financial loss. As a matter of fact, the amount was totally refunded and in proof of it, the document at Sl. No. 13 has been adduced into evidence. 9. Lastly it is argued that in Order VIII Rule 1A of CPC vide Amendment Act of 2002, sub-clause (3) has been inserted to permit the parties to adduce into evidence the relevant documents with the leave of the Court. There is no absolute bar to admission of document not filed with the list of documents at the time of filing of the written statement. Reliance is placed on (2011) 11 SCC 275 (K.K. Velusamy Vs. N. Palanisamy) and (2020) 10 SCC 706 (Sugandhi 2025:JHHC:34338 4 (dead) by Legal Representatives & Anr. Vs. P. Rajkumar represented by his Power Agent Imam Oli). 10. Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, learned counsel for the opposite parties, opens his argument by referring to the provision which mandates the list of documents to be filed at the time of filing of written statement. It is contended that if the document is not in possession of the defendant, then he may file it in terms of Sub Rule (3) of Order VIII Rule 1A of the CPC at the stage of defence evidence and not at the present stage when the case is posted for the evidence of the Plaintiff. Further, there has been an inordinate delay in filing the application before learned Trial Court seeking leave to adduce these documents into evidence. Suit was filed in 2011 and the defendants made a delayed appearance and filed written statement in 2014. Most of these documents were available with the defendant, but it took another 9 years to press an application before learned Trial Court on 11.09.2023 seeking leave of the Court to file the list. Further, the documents, which have come into existence, post filing of the written statement cannot be considered by learned Trial Court under this provision. 11. It is mainly contended that most of the documents are post litem motam which cannot be permitted to be introduced in the present case by recourse to Order VIII Rule 1A (3) of CPC, since this provision is an enabling provision to permit the defendant to introduce the documents into evidence which were missed out while filing the written statement. It does not contemplate the documents which are post litim. Further, there are false statements made in the application before learned Trial Court taking ground that this list of documents had been somewhat misplaced precluding the defendant to file it before the learned Trial Court along with the written statement. 12. It is submitted that the application for leave was filed on 11.09.2023 without any list of documents which was only filed after the reply and objection raised by the plaintiff in his petition on 17.01.2024. The proposed list has been filed on 21.02.2024. One of the grounds, which has been taken to express due diligence, is that the said list had got lost. However, so far as the document at Sl. No. 8 is concerned, the certified copy of it was applied for on 10.02.2023 and was obtained on 15.03.2023 which busts the plea that the list had been lost. 13. So far the document at Sl. Nos. 6, 7 and 8 are concerned, these are the documents pertaining to an eviction suit which will not be relevant in the present 2025:JHHC:34338 5 case and are beyond pleadings written statement. 14. Having considered the submissions advanced, the short question that falls for consideration is whether the impugned order suffers with any infirmity in rejecting the petition seeking permission to file the list of documents as referred to above. 15. Position of law has been correctly stated by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party, that interdict to file documents under Order 8 R1-A (1) of C.P.C is with respect to the documents which were with the defendant and were not filed at the time of filing of the WS. Logically the interdict will not apply to those post litim document which cannot be said to be in the possession of the Petitioner at the time of filing of the WS. 16. In the present case there are both types of documents, one which were present with the petitioner and were not filed, and those documents which are for the period after filing of the written statement. 17. Relief of specific performance of contract is a discretionary remedy and relevant factors while granting specific performance of real estate sale agreements are the conduct of the parties, the nature and circumstances of the contract, the timing of the suit, and the impact of rising property prices. Discretion is to be exercised judiciously, by balancing equity, fairness, and the specifics of each case, especially in light of changed economic circumstances such as inflation and steep property appreciation. 18. Thus, each document needs to be examined in the light of their relevancy by the trial court considering the nature of relief claimed and the pleading of the party. 19. The documents which are post litim, cannot be said to be barred by O 8 R 1-A and their admissibility can be considered as per their relevancy at the stage of defence evidence. As stated earlier, relevancy of the evidence depends on the pleadings and the nature of relief for which the suit is filed. In a specific performance of contract for real estate sale agreement, price escalation, and those having a bearing on the ‘readiness and willingness’ is also relevant. 20. From the list of documents sought to be introduced, it is apparent that those at serial no.1,3,5,6 are of the period after filing of the suit. Therefore, the dismissal of these documents on the ground that it was barred by O 8 R 1-A is not sustainable and is accordingly set aside. These documents appear to be relevant in view of the issues at hand. 2025:JHHC:34338 6 21. So far, the other documents are concerned, they are certainly of the period before the filing of the suit. These documents cannot be said to be not relevant for deciding the substantive rights of the parties in the instant suit. However, so far due diligence is concerned it has been argued that these documents were mixed up with other old files and therefore could not be produced at the time of filing of the written statement. 22. This court is of the view that Order 8 Rule 1-A(3), has been inserted so as to afford opportunity to the defendant for adducing into evidence, the document which could not be filed at initial stage. The case is still at the stage of plaintiff’s evidence, and no prejudice is likely to be caused in permitting the defendant to file these documents. It has been held by the Apex Court in Sugandhi v. P. Rajkumar, (2020) 10 SCC 706 : 8. Sub-rule (3), as quoted above, provides a second opportunity to the defendant to produce the documents which ought to have been produced in the court along with the written statement, with the leave of the court. The discretion conferred upon the court to grant such leave is to be exercised judiciously. While there is no straitjacket formula, this leave can be granted by the court on a good cause being shown by the defendant. 9. It is often said that procedure is the handmaid of justice. Procedural and technical hurdles shall not be allowed to come in the way of the court while doing substantial justice. If the procedural violation does not seriously cause prejudice to the adversary party, courts must lean towards doing substantial justice rather than relying upon procedural and technical violation. We should not forget the fact that litigation is nothing but a journey towards truth which is the foundation of justice and the court is required to take appropriate steps to thrash out the underlying truth in every dispute. Therefore, the court should take a lenient view when an application is made for production of the documents under sub-rule (3). 23. The impugned order is accordingly set aside. Civil miscellaneous petition is allowed. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Pawan/ - Uploaded 19.11.2025