PRAMILA SWAIN Vs. RASANNA KUMAR SASMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order dated 3.9.2005 passed by the Civil Judge (JD), Nimapara in T.S. No.121 of 1995 is assailed in this Writ Petition by the plaintiffs in that suit.

(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. It appears that in the plaint a number of documents were relied upon, but in the list filed the said documents were neither mentioned nor copies thereof were filed. After commencement of trial of the suit and in course of examination of plaintiffs witnesses, a petition was filed by the plaintiff under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC with a prayer to permit them to amend the plaint and furnish the list of documents sought to be relied upon which may be exhibited during evidence. Analyzing the provisions of Order 6, Rule 17 CPC the Court below held that after commencement of trial a party should not be allowed to amend the pleadings unless of course the said party satisfies the Court that in spite of due diligence he could not raise the matter in question before commencement of trial.

(3.) SUB -rule (3) of Rule 14 of Order 7 CPC stipulates that a document which ought to be produced by the plaintiff when the plaint is present or ought to be entered in the list are not produced or entered in the list, shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit. Thus the Legislature in its wisdom has granted discretion to Court to permit a plaintiff to produce the documents even after commencement of trial of the suit if is satisfied the Court that there are sufficient reasons for that.