STATE OF ASSAMversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

                       [2018] 6 S.C.R. 593                             593


                        STATE OF ASSAM                                 A
                                 v.
                  UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
        (IA No.80789 of 2017 in Original Suit No. 2 of 1988)
                          JULY 20, 2018                                B
      [DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A.M. KHANWILKAR AND
             DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
      Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order XI r. 14, Order VII
r. 14 – Production of documents-topographical maps – Boundary          C
dispute between Assam and Nagaland – Production of certified copy
of topo-sheets by a person concerned from Survey of India –
However State of Assam sought production of some more
topographical maps – Objection raised by State of Nagaland that
leave for production of documents had been sought and granted
by this Court and production of additional documents cannot be         D
granted at the present stage – Held: 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 – Production of the documents by the witness for the Survey
of India should be allowed in the interest of justice.                 E
     The issue pertains to production of topographical maps in
a boundary dispute between Assam and Nagaland.
      Disposing of the Interlocutory Application, the Court
      HELD: There is no reason to disallow the production of           F
the maps. The evidence of PW 9 is being recorded. Production
of the documents by the witness for the Survey of India should
be allowed in the 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. How ever, it is clarified that the relevance or            G
admissibility of the documents is not dealt with. It would be open
to the State of Nagaland to raise such objections as it is advised.
[Para 3] [596-B-C]

                                                                       H
                                 593
594            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2018] 6 S.C.R.


A          CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Interlocutory Application
      No.80789 of 2017 in Original Suit No. 2 of 1988.

             Ashok H. Desai, K. N. Balagopal, Sr. Advs., Manoj Goel,
      Shuvodeep Roy. Dasarath Deka, P. Parmeswaran, Mohit D. Ram,
      G. Ramakrishna Prasad, Suyodhan Byrapaneni, Mohd. Wasay Khan,
B     Ms. Filza Moonis, A. P. Mukund, Ms. Nitya Nambiar, Mohinder Saini,
      Jitender Saini, Visto Rio, Anil Shrivastav, Rituraj Choudhary, S. Wasim
      A. Qadri, Ms. Binu Tamta, Ms. Bharati Tyagi, B. V. Balram Das, Advs.
      for the appearing parties.

C           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

             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
D     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.

               2. On 2 July 2015, this Court allowed the production of certain
E     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
F     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
G     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:


H
 STATE OF ASSAM v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS                                   595
        [DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]

                                                                            A
Sl.No   Topo Map Nos. & Scale             Sl.No   Topo Map Nos. & Scale
.                                         .
1.      83G/13-(1 inch to a Mile)         5.      83G-(1 inch to 4 Miles)
        (1923)

2.      83J/6-(1 inch to a Mile) (1937)   6.      83J-(1 inch to 4 Miles)   B
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)

                                                                            C
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           D
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                   E
(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.       F
(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           G
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.


                                                                            H
596                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2018] 6 S.C.R.


A             (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
B     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 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
C     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.
D

      Nidhi Jain                                                     IA disposed of.




E




F




G




H