Generally, it is the duty of the party to lead the best evidence in his possession, which could throw light on the issue in controversy and in case such material evidence is withheld, the Court may draw adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act notwithstanding, that the onus of proof did not lie on such party and it was not called upon to produce the said evidence.[1]

However, in Mt. Bilas Kunwar v. Desraj Ranjit Singh, AIR 1915 PC 96, a view has been expressed that it is open to a litigant to refrain from producing any document that he considers irrelevant; if the other litigant is dissatisfied, it is for him to apply for interrogatories/inspections and production of documents. If he fails to do so, neither he nor the Court at his suggestion, is entitled to draw any inference as to the contents of any such documents.

In Kamma Otukunta Ram Naidu v. Chereddy Pedda Subba Reddy & Ors., AIR 2003 SC 3342, Supreme Court held that all the pros and cons must be examined before drawing an adverse inference against a party. In that case the issue had been, as to whether two persons had been travelling together in the vehicle and presumption had been drawn only on the basis that the bus tickets of both the persons were not produced. Supreme Court held that presumption could not have been drawn if other larger evidence was shown to the contrary.[2]

In Mahant Shri Srinivas Ramanuj Das v. Surjanarayan Das & Anr., AIR 1967 SC 256, Supreme Court held that mere withholding of documentary evidence by a party is not enough to draw adverse inference against him. The other party must ask the party in possession of such evidence to produce the same, and in case the party in possession does not produce it, adverse inference may be drawn:

“It is true that the defendant-respondent also did not call upon the plaintiff-appellant to produce the documents whose existence was admitted by one or the other witness of the plaintiff and that therefore, strictly speaking, no inference adverse to the plaintiff can be drawn from his non-producing the list of documents. The Court may not be in a position to conclude from such omission that those documents would have directly established the case for the respondent. But it can take into consideration in weighing the evidence or any direct inferences from established facts that the documents might have favoured the respondent case.”

In Ramrati Kuer v. Dwarika Prasad Singh & Ors., AIR 1967 SC 1134, Supreme Court held:

“It is true that Dwarika Prasad Singh said that his father used to keep accounts. But no attempt was made on behalf of the appellant to ask the court to order Dwarika Prasad Singh to produce the accounts. An adverse inference could only have been drawn against the plaintiffs-respondents if the appellant had asked the court to order them to produce accounts and they had failed to produce them after admitting that Basekhi Singh used to keep accounts. But no such prayer was made to the court, and in the circumstances no adverse inference could be drawn from the non-production of accounts.”[3],

The lower courts drew an adverse inference against the appellant- plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The question arose as to whether the party had the means to pay. The court further held that before the adverse inference is drawn against a particular party, the conduct and diligence of the other party is also to be examined. Where a person deposed that as he had deposited the money in the Bank and the other party did not even ask as on what date and in which Bank the amount had been deposited and did not remain diligent enough, the question of drawing adverse inference against such a person for not producing the Pass Book etc. cannot be drawn.

In Mahendra L. Jain & Ors. v. Indore Development Authority & Ors., (2005) 1 SCC 639, Supreme Court held that mere non-production of documents would not result in adverse inference. If a document was called for in the absence of any pleadings, the same was not relevant. An adverse inference need not necessarily be drawn only because it would be lawful to do so.

In Manager, R.B.I., Bangalore v. S. Mani & Ors., AIR 2005 SC 2179, Supreme Court dealt with the issue wherein the Industrial Tribunal directed the employer to produce the attendance register in respect of the first party workmen. The explanation of the appellant was that the attendance registers being very old, could not be produced. The Tribunal, however, in its award noticed the same and drew an adverse inference against the appellants for non-production of the attendance register alone. Supreme Court reversed the finding observing:

“As noticed hereinbefore, in this case also the respondents did not adduce any evidence whatsoever. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in drawing an adverse inference. The initial burden of proof was on the workmen to show that they had completed 240 days of service. The Tribunal did not consider the question from that angle. It held that the burden of proof was upon the appellant on the premise that they have failed to prove their plea of abandonment of service”[4].

Order XI CPC

Order XI CPC contains certain provisions with the object to save expense by obtaining information as to material facts and to obtain admission of any fact which he has to prove on any issue. Therefore, a party has a right to submit interrogatories relating to the same matter in issue. The expression “matter” means a question or issue in dispute in the action and not the thing about which such dispute arises. The object of introducing such provision is to secure all material documents and to put an end to protracted enquiry with respect to document/material in possession of the other party.

In such a fact-situation, no adverse inference can be drawn against a party for non-production of a document unless notice is served and procedure is followed.

Under Rule 14 of Order XI, the court is competent to direct any party to produce the document asked by the other party which is in his possession or power and relating to any material in question in such suit.

Rule 15 Order XI provides for inspection of documents referred to in pleadings or affidavits. Rule 18 thereof, empowers the court to issue order for inspection. Rule 21 thereof provides for very stringent consequences for non-compliance with the order of discovery, as in view of the said provisions in case the party fails to comply with any order to answer interrogatories or for discovery or inspection of documents, he shall, if he is a plaintiff, be liable to have his suit dismissed for want of prosecution and if he is a defendant, to have his defence, if any, struck out and to be placed in the same position as if he had not defended, and the party interrogating or seeking discovery or inspection may apply to the court for an order to that effect.

Thus, in view of the above, the suit may be dismissed for non-compliance of the aforesaid orders by the plaintiff and the plaintiff shall also be precluded from bringing a fresh suit on the same cause of action. Similarly, defence of the defendant may be struck off for non-compliance of such orders.

Thus, in view of the above, the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that, issue of drawing adverse inference is required to be decided by the court taking into consideration the pleadings of the parties and by deciding whether any document/evidence, withheld, has any relevance at all or omission of its production would directly establish the case of the other side. The court cannot loose sight of the fact that burden of proof is on the party which makes a factual averment. The court has to consider further as to whether the other side could file interrogatories or apply for inspection and production of the documents etc. as is required under Order XI CPC.

Conduct and diligence of the other party is also of paramount importance. Presumption or adverse inference for non-production of evidence is always optional and a relevant factor to be considered in the background of facts involved in the case. Existence of some other circumstances may justify non-production of such documents on some reasonable grounds. In case one party has asked the court to direct the other side to produce the document and other side failed to comply with the court’s order, the court may be justified in drawing the adverse inference. All the pros and cons must be examined before the adverse inference is drawn. Such presumption is permissible, if other larger evidence is shown to the contrary.

Reference

Union of India v. Ibrahim (2012)

[1] Vide: Murugesam Pillai v. Gnana Sambandha Pandara Sannadhi, AIR 1917 PC 6; Hiralal & Ors. v. Badkulal & Ors., AIR 1953 SC 225; A. Raghavamma & Anr. v. A. Chenchamma & Anr., AIR 1964 SC 136; The Union of India v. Mahadeolal Prabhu Dayal, AIR 1965 SC 1755; Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar v. Mohamed Haji Latif & Ors., AIR 1968 SC 1413; M/s. Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd. v. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR 2003 SC 3024; Musauddin Ahmed v. State of Assam, AIR 2010 SC 3813; and Khatri Hotels Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr., (2011) 9 SCC 126

[2] See also: Mohinder Kaur v. Kusam Anand, (2000) 4SCC 214; and Takhaji Hiraji v. Thakore Kubersing Chamansing & Ors., AIR 2001 SC 2328

[3] See also: Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v. District Collector, Raigad & Ors., AIR 2012 SC 1339). 12. In Smt. Indira Kaur & Ors. v. Shri Sheo Lal Kapoor, AIR 1988 SC 1074

[4] See also: A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur, AIR 2005 SC 534; R.M. Yellatti v. Assistant Executive Engineer AIR 2006 SC 355; and Pratap Singh & Anr. v. State of M.P., AIR 2006 SC 514