You are on page 1of 4


(The High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh)

Principal Seat at Guwahati.
(Civil Revisional Jurisdiction)

C.R.P. NO. 338 of 2014

Mr. Pranoballav Roy …. Petitioner


Mr. Biswajit Dutta & Others …Respondents



The Respondents most respectfully submit as under :

1. At the outset, Respondents submit that the suit filed by the Petitioner is
mala fide, false and is totally devoid of merit. The suit is opposed. The
same is false, frivolous, misconceived, vexatious and not maintainable
either in law or on facts as framed and filed. The Petitioner has not
complied with the imperative provisions of Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 in general and of Order VII Rule 14 thereof in particular, at the
time of institution of the present suit.
2. The present application filed by the Petitioner challenges the order dated
05.12.2013 passed by the learned Munsiff No.1, Cachar at Silachar in the
Suit No. 59/2009. In the above order the Petitioner’s plea for the
acceptance of the documents that were submitted along with the
examination in chief of the PW 1 was rejected.

3. In the light of the above fact the Respondents humbly request the
Hon’ble Court to dismiss the above petition at the very face of it in the
interest of justice since it has been rejected by the learned Munsiff No.1,
Cachar at Silachar. And that this petition and the contained pleading if
considered will only cause unnecessary wastage of time of the Hon’ble
Court and harassment to the Respondents. Therefore the present
petition is nothing but gross abuse and misuse of process of law and
deserves to be dismissed in limine. The Respondents also submit that
the application of the Petitioner is baseless because they haven’t
complied with the provisions of the Order VII Rule 14 of the Civil
Procedure Code. And that it was their duty to do so.

Order VII Rule 14 of the Civil Procedure Code :

Documents relied on in Plaint : Production of document on which
Petitioner sues or relies

(1) Where a Petitioner 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 documents not in the possession or power of the
Petitioner, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose possession or
power it is.

(3) A document which ought to be produced in court by the Petitioner

when the plaint is presented, 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 Petitioner’s witnesses, or, handed over to a witness
merely to refresh his memory.

4. The Order VII Rule 14 of the Civil Procedure Code, referring to Order
VII Rule 14(1) of the Civil Procedure Code explains that when a
document is to be used in the support of the claim in the plaint the copy
of such document should be attached at the time of filing of the plaint in
a list of documents. And that such document in the original form also
should be produced before the court with the copy that is submitted.
Here it is presumed that such document is in his possession when he
files such plaint and when the document supports such a plaint of the

5. Order VII Rule 14(2) of the Civil Procedure Code further explains that if
such documents are not in possession or power of the Petitioner he

should state if not in his possession in whose possession such
documents are in.

6. Order VII Rule 14(3) of the Civil Procedure Code explains that if the
documents are not produced in the prescribed manner, they would not
be admissible as evidence except with the leave of the Hon’ble Court.

7. The Respondents submit that, the Petitioner has not complied with
provisions explained in Para 5. & Para 6. Neither has the Petitioner
produced the original document in front of the Hon’ble Court nor has
the Petitioner mentioned as to why he failed to produce the document
and if not in the Petitioner possession whose possession the document
had been. Hence the Respondents want to stress on the fact that the
Petitioner has been negligent and exploited the process of law. The
Petitioner has taken the law for granted and not complied with the
provisions of Order VII Rule 14 of the Civil Procedure Code. This act
on the part of the Petitioner is an act of gross negligence and such act
should not be tolerated. Hence the Respondent would request the
Hon’ble Court not to grant leave to the Petitioner as per Order VII Rule
14(3) of the Civil Procedure Code. Since it would be an abuse of the
process of law to allow the Petitioner to produce the documents at this
stage of the case on the background that Petitioner has been ignorant of
producing them at the time of filing the plaint or even bringing it to the
notice of the Hon’ble Court as to why he failed to produce them.

8. It is also stated by the Petitioner that the photocopies of all documents

were produced at the time of presentation of the suit hence they had
brought to the notice of the Respondents the documents that were being
exhibited. However at the time of the settlement of the issues the
original documents were not produced. And the Petitioner claims
compliance with the process of law since the photocopies were
produced. The Respondents wishes to highlight that documents whose
original were not produced and also whose whereabouts where not
known or informed to the Hon’ble Court at the initial stage of the case
are being pressed upon by the Petitioner to be accepted as evidence and
form the foundation of their case. This is strongly opposed by the

9. The respondents submit that the Petitioner is not entitled to what is
claimed by the Petitioner. With reference to the petition, the
Respondents state that the Petitioner has miserably failed to make out
any case in his favour. The balance of convenience and equity much less
does not tilt in favour of the Petitioner. Subject to maintainability of the
present suit, this Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to entertain, try and
dispose of the present suit. The Petitioner is not entitled to any reliefs as
prayed for either in law or equity. At rest of the contents of the
paragraphs under reply, which are not specifically admitted by this
Respondents, may be deemed to have been denied and traversed. For all
the aforesaid reasons, the suit of the Petitioner being totally
misconceived and bad in law and deserves to be dismissed in limine.

Place :

Dated :

Advocate for the Respondent Respondent


I, Mr. Pranobhallav Roy one of the Respondents in the above matter

and a person conversant with the facts of the case, do hereby state on
solemn affirmation that the contents hereof are true to my own knowledge,
belief and information and are believed by me to be true and correct upon
information received by me and believed by me to be true. In testimony
whereof I accordingly verify the contents of the Written Statement and in
testimony whereof I put my hand and seal hereto at ________ on this ___
day of __________ 2018.

Filed in the Court

On :

Advocate for the Respondent Deponent