advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Thursday, July 26, 2018

The boundary dispute between Assam and Nagaland forms the subject matter of the Suit before this Court.= Order VII Rule 14 provides thus: “Production of document on which plaintiff sues or relies (1) Where a plaintiff sues upon a document or relies upon document in his possession or power in support of his claim, he shall enter such documents in a list, and shall produce it in Court when the plaint is presented by him and shall, at the same time deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the plaint. (2) Where any such document is not in the possession or power of the plaintiff, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose possession or power it is. (3) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the plaintiff when the plaint is 1presented, 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. (4) Nothing in this rule shall apply to document produced for the cross examination of the plaintiff's witnesses, or, handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.” - we see no reason to disallow the production of the maps. The evidence of PW 9 is being recorded. Production of the above documents by the witness for the Survey of India should, in our view, be allowed in the 4 interest of justice. The documents were not in the possession of the applicant and the earlier order of this Court will not preclude the State of Assam from seeking production at this stage. We, however, clarify that we have not dealt with the relevance or admissibility of the documents. It would be open to the State of Nagaland to raise such objections as it is advised to raise and all appropriate defences.

1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
IA NO 80789 OF 2017
IN
ORIGINAL SUIT NO.2 OF 1988
STATE OF ASSAM ..PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..DEFENDANTS
J U D G M E N T
Dr D Y CHANDRACHUD, J
1 The boundary dispute between Assam and Nagaland forms the subject
matter of the Suit before this Court. Recording of the evidence of PW 9 –
Md.Shafiqur Rahman of the Survey of India commenced on 30 January 2017.
During the course of his examination on 31 January 2017, PW 9 produced
certified copies of 33 Topo-sheets. In the process of filing the relevant
topographical maps, the State of Assam seeks to cause the production of some
more maps.
REPORTABLE
2
2 On 2 July 2015, this Court allowed the production of certain maps.
According to the State of Assam the maps are maintained in the Head Office of
the Survey of India at Dehradun and are not within its possession or control.
During the course of the examination of PW 9, the State of Assam, by its letters
dated 24 February 2017, 7 March 2017 and 6 April 2017 sought the production
of certain topographical maps. In response to the letter dated 6 April 2017, PW
9 sought to produce the maps on 18 July 2017. However, this was objected to
by the State of Nagaland on the ground that since leave for the production of
documents had been sought and was granted by this Court, the witness cannot
be allowed to produce additional documents at the present stage. It is in view
of the objection of Nagaland that the present application has been filed. The
relief which has been sought is the production of the maps described in
paragraph 4 of the application which is extracted below:
Sl.No. Topo Map Nos. & Scale Sl.No. Topo Map Nos. & Scale
1. 83G/13-(1 inch to a Mile)
(1923)
5. 83G-(1 inch to 4 Miles)
2. 83J/6-(1 inch to a Mile)
(1937)
6. 83J-(1 inch to 4 Miles)
3. 83J/9-(1 inch to a Mile)
(1938)
7. 83N-(1 inch to 4 Miles)
(1936)
4. 83J/13-(1 inch to a Mile)
(1925)
3
Order XI Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides thus:
“14. Production of documents— It shall be lawful for the Court, at any
time during the pendency of any suit, to order the production by any
party thereto, upon oath of such of the documents in his possession or
power, relating to any matter in question in such suit, as the Court shall
think right; and the Court may deal with such documents, when
produced, in such manner as shall appear just.”
Order VII Rule 14 provides thus:
“Production of document on which plaintiff sues or relies
(1) Where a plaintiff sues upon a document or relies upon document in
his possession or power in support of his claim, he shall enter such
documents in a list, and shall produce it in Court when the plaint is
presented by him and shall, at the same time deliver the document and
a copy thereof, to be filed with the plaint.
(2) Where any such document is not in the possession or power of the
plaintiff, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose possession or
power it is.
(3) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the plaintiff
when the plaint is 1presented, 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.
(4) Nothing in this rule shall apply to document produced for the cross
examination of the plaintiff's witnesses, or, handed over to a witness
merely to refresh his memory.”
3 Having heard learned counsel and upon evaluating the objection of the
State of Nagaland, we see no reason to disallow the production of the maps.
The evidence of PW 9 is being recorded. Production of the above documents
by the witness for the Survey of India should, in our view, be allowed in the

4
interest of justice. The documents were not in the possession of the applicant
and the earlier order of this Court will not preclude the State of Assam from
seeking production at this stage. We, however, clarify that we have not dealt
with the relevance or admissibility of the documents. It would be open to the
State of Nagaland to raise such objections as it is advised to raise and all
appropriate defences.
4 Subject to what has been stated above, the application for production is
allowed. The Interlocutory Application shall accordingly stand disposed of.
...........................................CJI
 [DIPAK MISRA]
 ...........................................J
 [A M KHANWILKAR]
 ...........................................J
 [Dr D Y CHANDRACHUD]
New Delhi;
July 20, 2018

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.