Smt. Manju Sharma vs Bhilai Builders Private Limited
2022 Latest Caselaw 4962 Chatt

                                1

                                                                NAFR


     HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                   WP227 No. 484 of 2022
    Smt. Manju Sharma W/o Shri Laxman Sharma Aged About 47
     Years R/o Shivpara, Ward No. 34, Durg, Tahsil And District
     Durg, Chhattisgarh.
                                                     ---- Petitioner
                             Versus
  1. Bhilai Builders Private Limited Address - B-2/ 11 Ravi Bhawan
     Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.), Through Director
     Gulab Jain, Aged About 58 Years S/o Late Lalchand Jain, R/o
     Shanichari Bazar Durg Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh.
  2. Digvijay Singh Gupta S/o Dr. Raghvendra Singh Aged About
     41 Years R/o Near Kankalin Mandir, Baniya Para, Durg Tahsil
     And District Durg, Chhattisgarh.
  3. Vishvajit Singh Gupta S/o Jitendra Singh Gupta Aged About 35
     Years R/o Near Kankalin Mandir, Baniya Para, Durg Tahsil And
     District Durg, Chhattisgarh.
  4. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Durg, District :
     Durg, Chhattisgarh.
                                                  ---- Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr. T.K. Jha, Advocate. For Respondent No. 4/State : Mr. Wasim Miyan, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 03/08/2022

Heard.

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that by the

impugned order (Annexure- P/5) dated 22.06.2022 the

learned trial Court had allowed the application filed by the

respondent- Bhilai Builders Private Limited under Order 7

Rule 14(3) and additional documents have been taken on

record subject to payment of the cost of Rs. 10,000/- to pay

back to the District Legal Services Authority, Durg. The

learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the

impugned order is contrary to the provisions of the C.P.C. the

matter has already been reserved for judgment, therefore

there was no occasion to take these documents on record.

2. The learned trial Court, while allowing the application, has

observed that there were justifiable reasons for not filing the

documents on time and has taken note of the fact that as per

the principle of natural justice, the parties should be given

sufficient opportunity, and also recorded its finding that the

documents are public document which have been issued by

the competent authority. Taking into consideration this aspect

of the matter, learned Court below passed an order to take

the documents on record subject to payment of cost of Rs.

10,000/-. The reason assigned by the trial Court does not

suffer from any perversity or illegality, warranting any

interference with the impugned order by this Court. In the

eventuality of proving the document by the defendant, an

opportunity to the plaintiff should also been given to rebut

the same.

3. Considering the fact that the suit has been filed in the year

2019 and the matter has already been reserved for

judgment, it is directed that the trial Court should make an

endeavour to complete the trial within six months from the

date of the receipt of the copy of this order.

4. It is made clear that the petitioner and defendant both shall

not take unnecessary adjournment and shall not adopt delay

tactics and shall cooperate with the trial Court to complete

the trial within a time period given by this Court in the

foregoing paragraphs. With these observations and

directions, the matter is finally disposed of.

Sd/-

(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge H.L. Sahu