Introduction:
It is settled law that when one files a suit, the Plaint should be accompanied by all documents that are essential to prove one’s case. On the same lines, a defendant is also required to ensure that all documents relied on are annexed to his written statement. But what happens when you come across a crucial document after filing the Suit or the Written Statement. Can you add it to your existing case? The answer is yes.
In this article we will discuss the legal provisions which allow a party to add additional documents to his case.
After the filing of the pleadings, if for any reasonable cogent reason certain essential documents are not annexed to the plaint/ written statement and the same are discovered at a later date, the Plaintiff under Order VII Rule 14 (3) and the Defendant under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (“CPC”) can seek leave of the court to produce the documents.
Order VII Rule 14(3)
“(3) 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.”
Order VIII Rule 1A(3)
“(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.”
Upon a bare perusal of the provision, it becomes evident that documents which remained to be produced can be brought on record \with the leave of the court.
However, what the provision does not answer is under what circumstances can this leave be granted by the court?. The time frame within which this application must be made?Whether the court may grant leave to produce all documents? Whether the court will allow all applications filed under this provision or is it a discretionary right? Whether the court can allow leave to produce documents which are unstamped or where there are allegations of forgery?
Analysis:
Power of court to grant leave to produce additional documents in evidence is one of a procedural nature. The intent of procedural law is to ensure that substantial justice is done. It is hence a basic requirement that when the parties approach the court under the aforesaid provisions to show their bonafides and intent. When the intent of the parties backed by malice or delay the court may not be inclined to grant such a leave.
In the case of Haldiram Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Versus Haldiram Bhujiawala & Anr. the Plaintiff had filed an application under Order VII Rule 14(3) for production of additional documents. In this particular case the court had analysed that the suit was of 1991 and the same was strongly contested between the parties. Since the institution of the suit there were multiple interim applications filed. Hence, when the application to produce additional documents amounting to 14 volumes was filed in 2009 the same was rejected by the trial court on the grounds that the documents that were sought to be added were infact in possession of the Plaintiff for quite some time and in the peculiar facts of the case there was no reason why the same were not produced before. The Hon’ble trial court further noted that the same was being done with an intent to solely delay the proceedings. Hence, the Hon’ble Court had denied the application. It can hence be conferred that (a) the right to produce documents is a discretionary right available with the court and cannot be granted in all circumstances and (b) the parties must approach the court att he earliest possible instance, any undue delay may lead to rejection.
Recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Muruganandam v. Muniyandi, had dealt with the issue of whether unstamped and unregistered agreement can be allowed to be produced in evidence?. The Plaintiff in this case was denied by the trial court his right to produce the agreement for sale whose copy was already annexed to the plaint. The grounds for the same as analysed by the trial court was that the reason to not produce the original document is not convincing and that the agreement was unstamped and unregistered. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India while overturning the decision of the trial court had analysed the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act alongwith Order VII Rule 14(3) of CPC and allowed the Plaintiff to introduce the unregistered agreement for sale and lead oral evidence but at the same time had left it open for the Respondents to contest the relevancy and validity of the document as permissible in law and left it open for the trial court to pass appropriate orders.
The intent of the court in this proviso is not only to afford genuine parties another chance but also to help court so that substantial justice is done. So what happens when parties use this provision to seek leave to produce documents which may be forged?. In the case of Bhagwani Devi Mohata Hospital v A.D.J. Rajgarh & Anr. the petitioner had sought to produce documents at a belated stage during evidence. The contentions raised were that such documents were forged and concocted. The Hon’ble Court had in this case decided that these allegations regarding forgery of documents can be decided once both the parties are given the chance to prove or disprove the document. Hence it was noted that there was no error in law or jurisdiction in allowing the Plaintiff to place on record these documents.
From the aforesaid, it can be analysed that the parties are at liberty to produce the following documents:
- Documents, which though in existence at the time of the filing of the pleadings, but were not attached to the pleadings
- Documents which though referred in pleadings, but have not been produced in the pleadings
- Documents which have come into existence after filing of the pleadings
It also becomes apparent that not all applications under this provision may be allowed. The parties while seeking leave under Order VII and Order VIII must necessarily show
- Cogent reason why this document was not produced earlier
- Relevancy of the document for the parties to prove their case
- Documents must be of special importance to the case
- Reasons why leave must be granted to produce these documents
- The intent of the application is not to delay the proceedings, and that the application has been filed at the earliest possible time
It is pertinent to note that while this right is available to parties in civil proceedings, the application of this provision in commercial suits is restricted and instead parties can seek necessary reliefs as available under Order 11 Rule 1 of CPC
Conclusion:
To conclude, it is expected out of a party to produce all documents under his sleeve at the time of filing his case so that not only is his best case before the court but also because the opponent should know what is it that he has to defend. However, it is essential that in a genuine situation a party ought not to suffer due lack of relevant documents and hence the law provides him one opportunity through these provisions to produce additional documents. It may however be cautioned that this right cannot be used loosely and the party seeking to produce additional document must satisfy the court beyond reasonable doubt that circumstances did exist which prevented him for producing the documents earlier. The intent of the law is to protect a genuine litigator and hence the CPC by this provision is not giving party a right to improve its case or produce documents when they deem fit, rather it is giving a chance to prove its case, which the parties could not have done at the time of filing its case or defence.
Jyotika Raichandani, Associate, Solomon & Co.
About Solomon & Co.
Solomon & Co. (Advocates & Solicitors) was founded in 1909 and is amongst India’s oldest law-firms. The Firm is a full-service firm that provides legal service to Indian and international companies and high net-worth individuals on all aspects of Indian law.
“Disclaimer”
The information contained in this article is intended solely to provide general guidance on matters of interest for the personal use of the reader, who accepts full responsibility for its use. The application and impact of laws can vary widely based on the specific facts involved. As such, it should not be used as a substitute for consultation with a competent adviser. Before making any decision or taking any action, the reader should always consult a professional adviser relating to the relevant article posting.
Copyright © Solomon & Co. 2026, All rights reserved.