Holding

Delay in producing public documents may be condoned and the court must receive and consider them when they are relevant, notwithstanding the procedural lapse.

Summary

The appellants, who were the first parties in a reference proceeding under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act concerning compensation for acquired land, sought to prove their pre‑existing title by producing revenue records and other public documents. Because the documents were not in their immediate possession, they applied for condonation of delay in filing them under Order XIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The trial court dismissed the application, and the High Court upheld that dismissal on revision. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the explanation for delay need not be as stringent as under the Limitation Act and that, where the documents are relevant, the court may exercise its power under Order 41 Rule 27 to receive them in the interest of justice. Consequently, the delay was condoned, the trial court was directed to admit the documents, allow the parties to prove and rebut them, and decide the reference accordingly. The appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether delay in producing public documents can be condoned under Order XIII Rule 1 of the CPC.
Whether the trial court erred in refusing to receive the documents despite their relevance.
Whether the court may exercise its power under Order 41 Rule 27 to admit delayed documents in the interest of justice.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Order 41 Rule 27, s. Order XIII Rule 1
Land Acquisition Acts. 30
Limitation Acts. 5

Subjects

land acquisitioncompensationpublic documentscondonation of delayCivil Procedure CodeOrder XIIIOrder 41interest of justice

Judgment

BILLA JAGAN MOHAN REDDY AND ANR. A
v.
BILLA SANJEEVA REDDY AND ORS.

JANUARY 28, 1994

[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] B

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order XIII Rule 1-0rder XLI Rule
27-Production ofpublic document:.--Not in the custody ofparty-Time taken
in procuring certified copies-Delay in filint,-Application for condonation of
delay-Held: to be normally allowed in the interest of justice. c
Certain lands were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act and the
compensation was determined therefor. Appellants claimed 1/4 share in
the compensation determined and the respondents objected. Collector
made a reference under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. Appellants
were the first party and Respondents were the second party in the said D
reference proceedings, which is pending.

The title of the appellants to claim compensation was based on the
entries in record of rights, revenue records to show pre-existing title. The
said documents were sought to be produced by an application for condona- E
tion of delay in the production of documents which were public documents
and procuring certified copies of the same took time. The trial court
dismissed the application. Revision application preferred before the High
Court was also dismissed. Hence this appeal.
'
" Allowing the appeal and setting aside the orders of the Courts below, F
this Court,

HELD: 1.1. It is clear from a bare reading of Order XIII Rule 1 that
the parties or their counsel shall be required to produce all the documen-
tary evidence in their possession or power which they intend to rely on to
establish their right along with pleadings or before settlement of the issues. G
The Court is enjoined under Sub-Rule (2) to receive such documents
provided they are accompanied by an accurate list thereof prepared in the
prescribed form. If they are not in they party's possession or custody, it
shall be filed by the party along with an application to condone the del~y in
filing them. The explanation for delay is not as rigorous as one filed under H
429
430 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] 1 S.C.R.

A s. S of the Limitation Act. These documents were not in the possession or
custody of the appellants, but they have obtained certified copies from the
revenue authorities and sought to be produced. [431-H; 432-A, BJ
'
1.2. No doubt there is a delay in production of the said documents.
But the trial court had stated that the application was filed ~t the stage of
B arguments, seeking to produce those documents and sought to rely upon
the documents. It is settled law that, if the documents a~ found to be
relevant to decide the real issue in the controversy, and when the Court
felt that interest of justice required that the documents may be received,
exercising the power under Order 41, Rule 27 C.P.C. the appellate court
C would receive the documents and consider their effect thereof. When such
is the position, when the documents are sought to be produced in the trial
court, before the arguments are completed, normally they may be received;
an opportunity given to prove them and rebuttal if any and their relevance
and effect be considered in deciding the issues which arose in the con-
D troversy. [432-B-D]

1.3. The trial court was not justified in refusing to condone the delay ______...,
and to receive the documents. The delay in filing the documents is con-
doned. The trial Court is directed to receive the documents, give an
opportunity to the parties to prove the documents and if necessary, oppor-
E tunity to .the respondent to rebut the same and then dispose of the
reference according to law. [432-D, E]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2254 of
1994.

F From the Judgment and Order dated 5.7.1993 of the Andhta Pradesh
High Court in C.R.P. No. 2805 of 1992.

D. Prakash Reddy and Mrs. Rani Chabra for the Appellants.

The following Order of the Court was delivered:
G
1. The Office Report and also the affidavit of dasti service would
prove that respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4 have been served by usual mode and
respondent Nos. 3, 5, 6 and 7 refused to receive notice even by dasti. Under
these circumstances the service in the S.L.P. is complete. When the case
H was called, no one appeared for them, nor did they app~ar in person.

r
BILLA JAGAN v. BILLASANJEEVA 431

2. Lea-ve granted Heard learned counsel for the appellants. A
3. The appellants are the first party in the reference proceedings
under s. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act which relates to an extent of Acre
33.09 gunthas of land in Chintagattu village, Warangal District, Andhra
Pradesh, acquired due to submersion of Pochampadu Project. After deter-
mination of compensation, since the appellants claimed 1/4th share therein B
and was objected to by the 2nd party/respondents, the Collector made a
reference under s. 30 and it is now pending a decision therein. The title of
the appellants to claim compensation is based on the entries in the record
of rights, revenue records to show pre-existing title. They sought to prove
it by filing copies of family holdings, khasra Pahnin and Pahni Patrikas for C
the year 1954-55 and Certified Copy of Pahani from M.R.O. Hasanparthy
of S. Nos. 22A, 48, 55, 56, 57/C, 58/B, 58/C for the year 1959-60 to 1969-70
and other documents. The documents were sought to be produced by an
application for condonation of delay in their production under Order 13,
Rule (12) of C.P.C. These documents are public documents. The sub-or-

- --- dinate Judge dismissed the same. On revision, the High Court dismissed
the C.R.P. No. 2805/92 by order dated 5.7.1993. Thus this appeal by special
leave.
D

Order XIII Rule 1 provides thus:

"1. Documentary evidence to be produced at or before settlement E
of issues -

(1) The parties or their pleaders shall produce, at or before the
settlement of issues, all the documentary evidence of every descrip-
tion in their possession or power, on which they intend to rely, and F
which has not already been filed in Court, and all documents which
the Court has ordered to be produced.

(2) The Court shall rec~ive the documents so produced;

Provided that they are accompanied by an accurate list thereof G
prepared in such form as the High Court directs."

It is clear from its bare reading that the parties or their cnunsel shall be
required to produce all the documentary evidence in their possession or
power which they intend to rely on to establish their right along with
pleadings or before settlement of the issues. The Court is enjoined under H
432 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] 1 S.C.R.
i
A sub-Rule (2) to receive such documents provided they are accompanied by
an accurate list thereof prepart!d in the prescribed form. If tlley are not in
the party's possession or custody, it shall be filed by the party along with
an application to condone the delay in the filing them. The explanation for
delay is not as rigorous as one filed under s. 5 of the Limitation Act. These
documents were not in the possession or custody of the appellants, put they
B have obtained certified copies from the revenue authorities and sought to
be produced. It is undoubted that there is a delay in production of the said
documents. But the trial court had stated that the application was filed at
the stage of arguments, seeking to produce those documents kmd sought to ,
rely upon the documents. It is settled law that, if the documqnts are found
C to be relevant to decide the real issue in the controversy. And when the
Court felt that interest of justice requires that the documents may be
received, exercising the power under Order 41, Rule 27 C.P,.C. the appel-
late court would receive the documents and consider their effect thereof.
When such is the position, when the documents are sought to be produced
in the trial court, before the arguments are completed, nonµally they may
D be received; an opportunity given to prove them and rebuttal if any their
_.._._ __

E
relevance and effect may have, be considered in deciding the issues arose
in the controversy. Under these circumstances, the trial court was not
justified in refusing to condone the delay and to receive the documents.
The High Court also committed the same error in not cpnsidering the
effect in this behalf in the right perspective. The orders are accordingly set
aside and the delay in filing the documents is condoned. The Trial Court
..
is directed to receive the documents, give an opportunity t<:> the parties to
prove the documents and if necessary, opportunity to the' respondent to
rebut the same and then dispose of the.reference according to law.
F The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.

G.N. Appeal allowed.