Order 8 Rule 1-A CPC | HP High Court Refuses Belated Production Of Public Documents, Cites Lack Of Due Diligence

The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that a defendant cannot be permitted to introduce certified copies of Jamabandi and mutation records at a belated stage after the conclusion of evidence, particularly when such documents are public in nature and presumed to be within his knowledge.

The Court observed that no satisfactory explanation was furnished for the failure to produce these documents earlier, especially at the stage of filing the written statement, and concluded that the application lacked the essential requirement of due diligence.

Justice Romesh Verma remarked that:“The documents sought to be produced are certified copies of Jamabandi and mutations, which are public documents, and it cannot be presumed that these were not within the knowledge of the petitioner.” “A perusal of the application does not disclose what prevented the petitioner/defendant from producing the said documents at an earlier stage, particularly at the time of filing the written statement.”

Background:

The case arose from a civil suit filed in 2015 by the plaintiff seeking declaration, possession, and injunction in respect of certain land. The plaintiff alleged that the revenue records had been tampered with, whereby the name of the original tenant was replaced without any lawful mutation.

The plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration, possession, confirmation of joint possession, prohibitory injunction and consequential relief. The defendant contested the suit and the matter proceeded to trial, with both parties leading their evidence.

After the closure of evidence, and when the matter had reached the stage of final arguments, the defendant filed an application under Order 8 Rule 1-A CPC seeking to produce copies of Jamabandi (1973–74) and mutation orders.

The plaintiff opposed this application, arguing that it was filed only to delay proceedings. The trial court agreed and dismissed the application on the ground of lack of due diligence.

The Court observed that the application did not disclose any circumstances preventing the defendant from placing these documents on record at the appropriate stage, particularly when the written statement was filed or during evidence.

The Court noted that the documents sought to be produced are certified copies of Jamabandi and mutations, which are public documents, and it cannot be presumed that these were not within the knowledge of the petitioner.

Thus, the High Court upheld the trial court's decision, holding that allowing such an application at the stage of final arguments would effectively derail the proceedings and encourage delay.

Case Name: Khem Singh V/s Dila Ram

Case No.: CMPMO No.56 of 2026

Date of Decision: 24.04.2026

For the petitioners: Mr.Vikrant Chandel, Advocate

For the respondent: Mr. Yug Singhal, Advocate

Click Here To Read/Download Order