Prasenjit Mandal, J. - (1.) CHALLENGE is to the Order VII Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 14th Court, Alipore in O.S. No.7 of 2006. Question is whether the production of document is permissible at the stage of argument of the suit.
(2.) THE petitioners filed an application for probate under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act in respect of a Will left by Late Prativa Pal. THE opposite party nos.1 to 3 raised an objection and as such, the said probate application was converted into O.S. No.7 of 2006 and it is pending before the learned Additional District Judge, 14th Court, Alipore. By the impugned order, the learned Trial Judge rejected the prayer for production of document under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of the C.P.C. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff has preferred this application. Now, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that the opposite party nos.1 to 3 are contesting the said O.S. No.7 of 2006. Accordingly, both the parties to the suit have adduced evidence in respect of their respective contentions regarding the execution, validity of the Will in question. The evidence of both the parties has been closed and the matter is fixed for hearing argument over the suit. At this stage, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of the C.P.C.. For better appreciation of the provisions of the said Code. The Rule is quoted below:- Order 7 Rule 14(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. Therefore, the plaintiffs were under an obligation to file the copy of the documents which are sought to be filed. Now, at the time of filing of the plaint, they did not do so. Even, when the trial commenced, the plaintiffs did not file the same. From the record, it also transfers that before the filing of the application, on September 21, 2010, the plaintiffs filed another application for the production of certain documents and that application was allowed on contest on payment of Rs.300/-. Subsequently, the matter was fixed for hearing argument. At that stage, the plaintiffs have wanted to recall the P.W.3 and to prove as many as nine documents as per application appearing as Annexure ?P 5? to the application. If the prayer is allowed at the stage of argument, it will create prejudice to the defendants inasmuch as the evidence of both the sides has been closed. If the prayer is allowed, the P.W.3 will be examined again on recall. The defendants will have to adduce evidence to controvert the evidence to be adduced.
(3.) FURTHER, as to tendering of those documents at the belated stage, the plaintiffs / petitioners herein have stated that those documents were misplaced and as such, those documents could not be filed at the earlier stage. In this regard, I am of the view that the learned Trial Judge has rightly disbelieved in the contention of the petitioners. He has rightly observed that it is not a valid or genuine ground for production of documents at the belated stage and the Court should not encourage to drag the parties on such an invalid ground. The learned Trial Judge is, therefore, justified in passing the impugned order. There is no scope of interference with the impugned order. Accordingly, the revisional application is dismissed. Considering the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.;