AVED RAFAT KHAN vs Messrs SHABBIR TILES AND CERAMICS LIMITED through Representative

ORDER

1. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 1-12-2003. By this order the learned Single Judge has modified his earlier order dated 31-10-2002, whereby permission was granted to the respondents/plaintiffs to produce/bring on record 428 documents in evidence. The modification was to the effect that those 428 documents were to be brought on record and could be exhibited subject to specifying all just legal exceptions and objections which could be taken by the appellant/defendant at the time of examination and cross-examination. We have heard the arguments of Mr. Syed Sami Ahmed, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Munawar Malik, learned counsel for the respondents. The grievance of the appellant as stated by Mr. Syed Sami Ahmed is that the orders dated 31-10- 2002 and 1-12-2003 were passed in a routine, mechanical and perfunctory manner without application of mind and having recourse to the provisions of law, especially the provisions of Rules 14, 17 and 18 of Order VII, C.P.C. He further submitted that the provisions of the above-said three quoted Rules very categorically and unequivocally establish that no documents can be produced either at the time of filing of the documents or at the time of filing of affidavit-in-evidence or at any time on the directions of the Court unless the documents relied upon have been clearly specified in a list to be attached to the plaint. He further submitted that any direction or order passed by a Court in contravention of the provisions of Rules 14, 17 and 18 of Order VII, C.P.C. Would be illegal and void and could not legally permit any party to proceed or act in a manner not provided by law.

2. Elaborating his arguments, he further submitted that Rule 14 refers to two categories of documents; firstly, the documents or copies of documents filed along with the plaint; and secondly, the documents relied upon and for the plaintiff it is incumbent to prepare a list of all those documents on which he relies for the purpose of this suit and attach the same along with the plaint, failing which he would not be permitted to file or bring on record such documents on record in view of the provisions of Rule 17, Mr.Munawar Malik, learned counsel for the respondents supported both the orders and submitted that in the plaint the respondents/plaintiffs had specifically mentioned the documents on which they relied upon for the purpose of their suit and in view of the above there was sufficient compliance of the provisions of Rule 14. He further submitted that in view of the above, no illegality could be pointed out in the orders dated 31-10-2002 and 1-12-2003, whereby the plaintiffs were permitted to bring on record 428 documents. The contention advanced by Mr. Munawar Malik is not legally correct. By merely mentioning the words "relevant record, documents, papers, letters, notices, receipts, correspondences etc. Etc." the provisions of Rule 14 cannot be said to have been complied with as according to the provisions thereof what the plaintiff is required to do is to mention each and every document in a list A which is to be annexed to the plaint, only then the plaintiff can bring on record the documents which have been specified in the list for the purpose of consideration thereof for decision. Mr. Munawar Malik has not been able to satisfy us with regard to the legality and propriety of the order dated 1-12-2003 or order dated 31-10-2002 and we are of the view that both the orders are in contravention of the provisions of Rules 14, 17 and 18.

3. Lastly, it was argued by Mr. Munawar Malik that the provisions contained in rule 14 were mere technicalities and technicalities should not be allowed to interfere or hamper in the administration of justice. We are afraid that they are not mere technicalities but these Rules provide a method or manner in which a party has been permitted to bring on record the documents on which he relies ensuring -that the other side is not taken by surprise and has been made aware as to what he would be facing when he would be appearing in Court to contest the suit. By ignoring the provisions of the above Rules, the other party will always be taken by surprise as the documents filed directly in evidence or along with the affidavit-in-evidence without being specified earlier would be absolutely alien to the other party and he would have no opportunity to rebut them.

4. For the foregoing reasons and discussion, we find that this High Court Appeal merits consideration and is allowed. The order dated 31-10-2002 as well as the order dated 1-12-2003 which modified - the order dated 31-10-2002 cannot be sustained and are set aside. The respondents will bring on record 18 documents, copies whereof have been filed by them along with the plaint. The remaining 400 documents which come within the category "documents relied upon" will not be brought on record and if brought on record will not be considered for deciding the suit.