Trial court cannot prevent admission of documents: HC

NT Correspondent

Bengaluru: The High Court of Karnataka has said that a Trial Court cannot prevent the production of documents by litigants. If the documents are not admissible for evidence, appropriate orders can be made when these documents are being marked for evidence but not at the stage of admission.

Litigants had claimed that in Mohammedan Law documents need not be registered and produced some documents. These were not allowed by the trial court at the time of admission itself. “The production of documents cannot be denied by the Trial Court. If the documents that are sought to be produced are inadmissible in evidence, it is open for the Trial Court to pass an appropriate order when the documents are sought to be marked in evidence. The Trial Court cannot prevent the production of documents," Justice NS Sanjay Gowda said in his judgement on November 3.

Rafisaheb and Mabavva had approached the HC after a Trial Court had refused documents related to a gift deed and consent letters as they were unregistered and stamp duty had not been paid on them. These litigants in a property dispute had filed an application under Order VIII Rule 1 (1A) of the Civil Procedure Code for listing these documents.

When the Trial Court rejected the application, they approached the High Court. The HC noted, “The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the parties are Mohammedans and the suit is for partition. He submits that under the ‘Mohammedan Law’, the documents that are to be produced do not require registration.”

The HC in its judgement said that the Trial Court can consider the admissibility only when considering these documents for evidence. “In my view, this contention will have to be considered by the Trial Court when those documents are sought to be admitted in evidence and admissibility of the documents cannot be considered while considering an application under Order VIII Rule-1(1A) of CPC, which was essentially for production of documents.”

Allowing the petition by the two litigants and setting aside the order of the Trial Court, the HC said, “The impugned order is therefore unsustainable and is accordingly quashed. The impugned order is therefore set aside. The defendant is permitted to produce documents as sought for. However, the admissibility of these documents cannot be considered by the Trial Court when they are sought to be marked in evidence.”