- (1.) This is an application made on behalf of the plaintiff for relying upon certain additional documents that have been disclosed by them under the letters dated September 19, 2018 and February 27, 2019. It is to be noted that the examination of the first witness of the plaintiff was concluded on February 15, 2019 and the matter was fixed for further examination of the second witness of the plaintiff today.
(2.) Mr. Banerjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff submits that the documents intended to be disclosed are a bunch of income tax receipts for taxes paid by the plaintiff and a photocopy of a letter dated December 24, 2003 issued by the plaintiff to the defendant company. Mr. Banerjee submits that this particular letter is referred to by the defendants in their written statement.
(3.) Mr. Ray, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendants has raised objections with regard to these further documents being disclosed at this stage on the ground that the application made by the plaintiff does not disclose the reasons as to why these documents were not disclosed at an earlier occasion. He relies on Salem Advocate Bar Association, T.N. vs. Union of India reported in (2005) 6 SCC 344, GSP Projects Private Limited vs. Rockfield Paj Replications Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2016 SCC OnLine Cal 3653, and Armen George and Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. Flavien Properties Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. reported in (2013) 2 Cal LT 322 (HC) in support of his submission that the Code of Civil Procedure does not allow for documents to be disclosed at any stage of the proceedings. He submitted that Order 7 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "CPC") requires the plaintiff to disclose his documents within a particular time frame and if the plaintiff intends to add additional documents, it is for the plaintiff to show that such documents were not in his possession or power to disclose at an earlier occasion. Mr. Banerjee in reply has placed the judgments in Kejriwal Enterprises vs. General Manager, Ordnance Factory and Ors. reported in (2005) 1 CHN 487 and Talewar Singh and Ors. vs. Bhagwan Das and Ors. reported in (1907-08) 12 CWN 312 to support his case that the law prevailing is that the plaintiff can take leave of the Court under Order 7, Rule 14, Sub-Rule (3) of the CPC to tender additional documents.;