Sikkim High Court: Jitendra Kumar Maheshwari, CJ, allowed the writ petitions which were arising out of the Order passed on 12-11-2019 in different suits allowing the application filed by the defendant under Order VIII Rule 1A (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Trial Court had observed that Order VIII Rule 1A (3) of the CPC gives discretion to the Court to allow the additional documents but it ought to be used according to well-established principles. Those principles may be relevant to the documents showing sufficient or good cause for not producing it earlier. Thereafter, the Court proceeded to hold that the documents were relevant and were necessary for effective determination of the issues, however, subject to payment of cost.

The Court from the Trial Court’s findings observed that during cross-examination on the plaintiff one document having signature of late Lakey Sherpa was shown by the counsel of defendants to the plaintiffs on the question of resemblance of the signature of late Lakey Sherpa, father of the plaintiff. Admittedly the said document was not related to the defence of the defendants, however, it was only for the purpose of resemblance of the signature of late Lakey Sherpa. The said document, at this stage, cannot be a relevant document to adjudicate the subject matter of the case.

The Court further observed that provision of Order VIII Rule 1A (3) which confers discretion on the Court is not an unfettered discretion on the Court. The Court must see the bona fides, genuineness, relevance of the document to the subject matter of the suit determining the controversy in question.

The Court allowing all the petitions held that merely by denial of the plaintiffs to the document having transaction with other persons by late Lakey Sherpa cannot be relevant to the merit of the present case setting aside the order passed by the Trial Court.[Chandu Sherpa v. Sunita Rai, 2021 SCC OnLine Sikk 91, decided on 08-07-2021]

Suchita Shukla, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.


For Petitioners: Mr Zangpo Sherpa,  Ms Lusiyana Thapa

For Respondent 1: Mr N. Rai, Senior Advocate Mr Yozan Rai,  Ms Vani Vandana Chhetri

For Respondent 2: Mr Sudesh Joshi, Additional Advocate General

Must Watch

Justice Shakdher on Obscenity book

safe sex education


Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.