Serial No.16 Regular Cause List. HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CM(M) 70/2024 CM(1285/2024) Zubair Farooqi …Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Z A Qureshi, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Rehana Fayaz, Advocate. VERSUS National Insurance Company Limited and Ors. Through: Mr. Aatir Javid Kawosa, Advocate. …Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE. ORDER 09.07.2025 1. Through the medium of present petition the petitioner has challenged order dated 25-01-2024, passed by the 2nd Additional Munsiff, Srinagar, whereby application of respondents/defendants seeking leave to place on record documents, has been allowed. 2. It appears that a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction has been filed by petitioner/plaintiff before the learned Trial Court against the respondents/defendants in which the plaintiff has sought a declaration that order dated 15-05-2013, passed by defendant No. 2 declaring period from 26-08-2011 to 01-08-2013 as break in service be declared as null and void and that defendants be directed to treat the said period on duty and to provide all consequential benefits in his favour. The plaintiff has also challenged decision dated 24-04-2015, of the defendants. 3. It seems that after the pleadings in the suit were complete issues came to be framed by the learned Trial Court on 17-07-2018 and the parties went to Trial. After the plaintiff had already completed his evidence and the evidence of the defendants was underway, the defendants moved an application seeking permission to place on record certain documents. The said application was objected to by the petitioner/plaintiff by filing reply thereto. Learned Trial Court vide impugned order dated 25-01-2024, allowed the application of defendants and granted leave to them to place on record the documents. It is this order which is under challenged in the present petition. 4. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order by invoking supervisory jurisdiction of this court on the grounds that no cogent reasons were assigned by the defendants for producing the documents on record belatedly. It has been contended that it was incumbent upon the defendants to produce the documents on record along with their written statement as mandated under Order 8 Rule 1(A) of the CPC and once they failed to do so, they had to justify their omission in filing the documents at the appropriate stage. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case. 6. Rule 1(A) of Order 8 CPC provides the procedure for production of documents by defendants and the same reads as under:- 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 this 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 the 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. Sub-Rule (3) quoted above mandates that a document which a defendant ought to have produced in court along with his written statement but has not been produced, cannot be taken on record without permission of the court. Thus, a document which a defendant produce after the filing of the written statement cannot be taken on record unless court grants permission for doing so. Such a document cannot be received in evidence. Rule1(1) of Order 13 CPC makes it mandatory for the parties to produce their original documents before settlement of the issues. 8. The question that falls for determination is as to in what circumstances leave can be granted by court for producing the documents on record if the defendant has failed to do so either at the time of filing the written statement or at the time of settlement of the issues. 9. The Supreme Court in Madanlal vs Shyamlal (AIR 2002) SC100) and later on in the case of Sugandhi and Another vs P. Rajkumar(2020) 10 SCC706 has held that the discretion conferred upon court to grant leave to file documents after the filing of the written statement is to be exercised judicially. It has been further held that a defendant who seeks to produce documents after the stage of filing of written statement has to show a good cause which has lesser degree of proof than that of sufficient cause. 10. Adverting to the facts of the present case in the application for grant of leave to produce documents the defendants have submitted that though they had made reference to the documents sought to be produced in their written statement yet due to inadvertence they could not place their documents on record along with the written statement. A perusal of the written statement would reveal that defendants have made reference to the fact that an inquiry was conducted against the plaintiff. The documents sought to be produced related to this inquiry. Therefore, it is not a case where plaintiff would be taken by surprise or any prejudice would be caused to him if these documents are taken on record. 11. The Supreme Court in Sugandhi’s case (Supra) has held that procedural and technical hurdles shall not be allowed to come in way of court while doing substantial justice and if 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. 12. The documents relating to the inquiry which is referred to by the defendants in their written statement are necessary for just decision of the case. Therefore, the technical and procedural violation committed by the defendants should not come in the way of unearthing the truth. Learned Trial Court has therefore rightly exercised its discretion in allowing the defendants to place on record the documents in question. 13. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any ground to interfere in the discretion exercised by the learned Trial Court in allowing the defendants to produce the documents. 14. The petition lacks merit and is dismissed accordingly. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge SRINAGAR 09.07.2025 Sarvar