1. CHAUDHARY KHALID RASHEED, J. Through the captioned writ petitions filed under Article 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution, 1974, order dated 17.09.2019 passed by the learned District Judge Mirpur and order dated 08.12.2018 recorded by Civil Judge Court No.1 Mirpur, have been assailed.
2. As both titled writ petitions are an outcome of the aforesaid impugned orders, hence, were heard together and are decided as such through this single judgment.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterated the contents and ground already taken in the writ petitions submitted that no good cause was mentioned in the application filed before the trial Court for production of additional documentary evidence at belated stage, hence, the same was liable to be rejected but the Courts below failed to understand the in hand controversy, law on the subject and wrongly allowed the respondents to produce documents at the later stage. The learned counsel placed reliance on 2011 SCR 87 and 1996 SCR 74.
4. In 2011 SCR 87, the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir has held that the documents relied upon must be attached with the plaint and for producing documents subsequently the party required to produce additional evidence has to mention very strong reasons for permission of the Court.
5. In 1996 SCR 74, it has been held that under Order XIII rules 1 and 2 C.P.C., it is incumbent upon a party to produce a document at the first hearing of the suit and if a party fails to do the needful no documentary evidence which was in possession or power of a party is admissible unless and until sufficient cause is shown for its non production at first hearing.
6. The learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned orders by contended that respondents produced said documents at later stage in order to rebut the documents produced by petitioners as additional documents before the trial Court, hence, were necessary to be placed on record thus no illegality has been committed by the Courts below while passing the impugned orders. He placed reliance on 2009 CLC 1320 and 2017 SCR 256.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the record of the case with utmost care and caution.
8. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir in 2009 CLC 1320, has held that if the documents intended to be produced are part of public record, have come from proper custody, there authenticity is beyond doubt, these are necessary for correct decision of the case, the Court should exercise its discretion accepting the documents and such like documents shall not ordinarily be refused. The relevant observations recorded in para 13 of the judgment are reproduced as under:-
13. Now, the question is that whether the documents produced in the trial Court were correctly allowed to be produced in evidence or these have to be rejected. The documents which are produced in the statement of counsel are all part of public record, two documents are the notifications one issued by the Azad Govt. of the State of Jammu and Kashmir and others by the Deputy Commissioner Mirpur while rest of the documents are certified copies of the sale-deeds.
9. Rule 1 of Order XIII C.P.C. provides that all the documentary evidence in the possession of the parties or their power shall be produced at the first hearing. It is correct that the party who basis his suit on certain documents it shall file these documents with the plaint and other documents on which the party intends to rely shall be entered in the list filed with the plaint. There is an exception to rule 14 of Order VII which is provided in rule 2 of Order XIII that documents can be provided at a later stage. Rule vests a discretion in the Court to receive the documents in evidence at a later stage, although, a condition has been imposed that good cause for non-production of documents at a later stage has to be shown. The object of this condition is to exclude the possibility of forged documents being produced in evidence. If the documents intended to be produced are part of public record and have come from proper custody, their authenticity is beyond doubt, furthermore, these are necessary for correct decision of the case, the trial Court shall exercise its discretion in favour of accepting the documents and such like documents shall not ordinarily be refused. The documents which are part of public record should not be ordinarily refused on the ground that these were not produced at earlier stage. Rules should be interpreted liberally, of course, while exercising the discretion the Court shall keep in mind that the documents intended to be produced shall not prolong the trial and these are absolutely free from any suspicion. The parties shall not unnecessarily be put in a position so, they lose their case due to non-production of genuine documents. Our this view is fortified by the cases decided by this Court and the case law enunciated by the superior judiciary of the Subcontinent."
10. It is an admitted position that documents sought to be produced are the public documents and are necessary for correct decision of the case because the learned counsel for the respondents has stated that petitioner produced some documents and in order to rebut the same the documents allowed by the Courts below to the respondents were necessary to be produced and this argument of the learned counsel for the respondents has not been denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Though the respondents-applicants have only mentioned that they may be allowed to produce documentary evidence for the sake of justice in their application, which cannot be termed as good cause, however, learned counsel for respondents argued that the documents are necessary to be produced in order to rebut the documents produced by petitioner and the learned counsel for the petitioner has not denied this fact during the course of arguments, hence, when the petitioner has been allowed to produce documents at belated stage thus the orders passed by the Courts below by allowing the respondents to produce documents at later stage in order to rebut those documents produced by petitioner is quite justified.
11. I agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that under Order XIII rule 2, C.P.C. for producing documents at belated stage the party has to show good cause but when the documents sought to be produced are public documents and their authenticity is not doubtful then the provisions of law has to be interpreted liberally and the discretion should be exercised by allowing the party to produce documents at later stage as has been held in 2009 CLC 1320, supra.
12. It is also relevant to note that a writ petition can be filed where the orders passed by the Courts below are lacking the jurisdictional competence or have been passed in derogation of law but when the trial Court has exercised discretion in a judicious manner and the order of the trial Court is maintained in revision petition then the same cannot be assailed in writ jurisdiction. Reliance may be placed 2017 SCR 257. I do not find any legal infirmity or lack of jurisdiction in the impugned orders rather the documents allowed to be produced are necessary for just decision of the case, thus the impugned orders require no indulgence by this Court.
13. The sum and substance of the above discussion is, finding no essence the captioned writ petitions are hereby dropped.