Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 13605 HP
Judgement Date : 14 September, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CMPMO No. 493 of 2023
Decided on: 14.09.2023
.
Shri Mukand Lal Sharma and anr. ....Petitioners.
Versus
Shri. Chiranji Lal and anr. ...Respondents
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the petitioners : Mr. Romesh Verma, Sr.
r Advocate, with Mr. Hitesh
Thakur, Advocate.
For the respondents : Nemo.
Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral)
By way of instant petition, a prayer has
been made to set-aside order dated 12.07.2023,
passed by learned Civil Judge, Court No, 8, Shimla,
H.P., whereby the application of respondent
No.1/plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 14 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, has been allowed.
1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. The impugned order reveals that while the
plaintiff was in the process of leading evidence in the
.
suit, he came up with an application under Order 7
Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, with a
prayer to allow him to produce documents viz. expert
report, site plan and photographs.
3. Application was resisted by the present
petitioners, however, learned Trial Court has allowed
the same by assigning the reasons as under:-
" In view of the authority cited supra, this Court find that opportunity must be afforded to the applicant to place on record the document that seems to bring
before the court the true facts of the case so that the court has access to all the relevant information in coming to its decision. Furthermore, at this stage, it
cannot be evaluated whether the said document is relevant to decide the present case. The relevancy
of the document has to be determined in accordance with law and not merely by submitting or filing
them in the Court. Therefore, an application for placing the document on record cannot be dismissed on the ground that the documents ought to be produced is irrelevant. Moreover, the applicant is yet to adduce his evidence and as such no prejudice is going to be caused to the other side as respondents would be getting sufficient opportunity for rebutting the documents."
4. This Court while exercising supervisory
jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of
.
India, will neither sit in appeal over orders of the
Court or Tribunal nor will substitute its own opinion
unless the order suffers from absolute illegality or
perversity. In a Civil Suit, a fact can be said to be
proved only by production of such evidence which is
not only relevant but admissible also. In the second
stage, the evaluation of its evidentiary value comes
into picture. In the instant case, the mere production
of documents will not prejudice the rights of
petitioner in any manner, more particularly, when
they will get a chance to cross-examine the
witnesses produced by the plaintiff and will also get a
chance to rebut the evidence led by him.
5. Learned Trial Court is right in holding
that the evidentiary value of the documents cannot
be seen at the stage of its production. The
production of a document in a civil suit is altogether
a different matter and as noticed above, mere
production of documents will not amount to the proof
of contents thereof.
.
6. In view of above discussion, I find no merit
in this petition and the same is dismissed.
7. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if
any, shall also stand disposed of.
(Satyen Vaidya)
14th September, 2023 Judge
(sushma)
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!