Himachal Pradesh High Court
Manorama Sharma vs . Food Corporation Of India & Ors. on 3 October, 2024
Manorama Sharma Vs. Food Corporation of India & Ors.
Civil Suit No.80 of 2010.
Reserved on 19.09.2024.
03.10.2024 Present: Ms. Sunita Sharma, Senior Advocate, with
Ms. Lalita Sharma, Advocate, for the
applicant/plaintiff.
Mr. Y.P. Sood, Advocate, for
non-applicant/defendants No.1 and 2.
Mr. Shiv Pal Manhans, Senior Panel Counsel,
for non-applicant/defendant No.3.
OMP No.470 of 2024.
The applicant/plaintiff has filed the present
application for placing on record additional documents. It
has been asserted that the Civil Suit is pending
adjudication before this Court since 2010 issues were
farmed. On 20.06.2012, no issue regarding the damage
was framed. The applicant-plaintiff moved an application
for framing the additional issues. The Court framed the
additional issues on 14.07.2023. The matter was listed for
the evidence of the applicant/plaintiff on the additional
issues. The applicant/plaintiff had to produce the
photographs and the technical report of the expert
Engineer on record. The documents are necessary for
proving the case of the applicant/plaintiff, no prejudice
would be caused to the non-applicants/defendants by
taking the documents on record. Therefore, it was prayed
that the present application be allowed and the documents
be placed on record.
3. The application was opposed by filing a reply
denying the contents of the application. It was asserted
that the plaintiff cannot be permitted to place the
photographs and the report of the Engineer at this highly
belated stage. The plaintiff is time to fill up the lacunae in
the evidence. The evidence of the parties has already been
completed and the application is liable to be dismissed. No
damage of any kind has been caused to the tenanted
premises by the defendants. The documents are not
necessary for the adjudication of the dispute between the
parties. Hence, it was prayed that the present application
be dismissed.
4. The rejoinder denying the contents of the
reply and affirming those of the application was filed.
5. I have heard Ms. Sunita Sharma, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Lalita Sharma, learned
counsels for the applicant/plaintiff, Mr. Y.P. Sood, learned
counsel for the respondent/defendant No.2 and Mr. Shiv
Pal Manhas, learned Senior Panel Counsel for defendant
No.3.
6. Ms. Sunita Sharma, learned Senior Counsel for
the applicant/plaintiff submited that the documents are
essential for the adjudication of the dispute between the
parties. They could not be filed earlier because the issues
to this effect were not framed. The issues were framed by
the Court on 14.07.2023. Therefore, she prayed that the
present application be allowed and the documents be
taken on record.
7. Mr. Y.P. Sood, learned counsel for the
respondent/defendant No.2 submitted that the documents
are not relevant for the adjudication of the dispute pending
between the parties. No fruitful purpose would be served
by taking the documents on record. Therefore, he prayed
that the present application be dismissed.
8. I have given considerable thought to the
submissions at the bar and have gone through the records
carefully.
9. It was laid down by this Court in Brahm Dass vs
Onkar Chand 2009 (1) Shim. LC 339 = Latest HLJ 2009(1) 384
(HPHC) that the party should be permitted to produce the
documents, which could not be filed with the plaint. It was
observed:
"8. The documents sought to be produced in Court
by the plaintiff when the plaint is presented or to
be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the
plaint, however, the documents can be produced
subsequently with the leave of the Court. Whether
the documents are relevant or not could not be
decided at the stage of considering the application
under order 7 Rule 14 (3) of the Code of Civil
Procedure and this question was to be determined
at the stage of arguments. The learned trial Court
has also misconstrued the judgment rendered by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited in the order.
There is no specific bar to produce the documents
at the stage of hearing with the leave of the Court.
The Court's endeavour must be to adjudicate the
lis effectively and if certain documents could not
be filed with the plaint until and unless serious
prejudice is caused to the other side, the same
must be permitted to be produced on record. The
other party also gets an opportunity to rebut the
evidence produced by the parties during the
hearing. The Court has to exercise the jurisdiction
for the production of the documents liberally.
10. It is a settled principle that opportunity should
be afforded to the parties to produce their evidence and
state their case before the Court. The Court has to exercise
the jurisdiction in favour of the production of the evidence
instead of scuttling it. The Courts should not permit the
parties to indulge in dilatory tactics to stall the
proceedings. The Court has discretion and generally
speaking, it will be a wise exercise of the discretion to
permit the production of the evidence and the question is
to be decided in each case in the light of the particular
circumstances."
11. A perusal of the record shows that this Court
had framed the issues regarding the damage to the
plaintiffs building on 14.07.2023. The plaintiffs wants to
place the document regarding the damage caused to her
land on record. There was no necessary to file the
documents before the framing of the additional issues as
the evidence can be led only in support only disproof of the
issues framed by the Court. Hence, the plea of the
applicant, but she had sufficient cause for not producing
the documents at earlier stage has to be accepted as
correct.
12. Even otherwise the delay in producing the
documents cannot result in the dismissal of the
application because the other side can obvious be
compensated in terms of money for the delay in filing the
application. Hence, the application cannot be dismissed
on the ground of delay.
13. It was submitted that the defendant had no
caused any damage to the plaintiffs building and a false
suit was filed by the plaintiff. This, plea is to be
adjudicated after the conclusion of the trial and not at this
stage.
14. Therefore, the present application is allowed
and the applicant is permitted to place the documents on
record subject to the payment of cost of Rs.2,000/-. The
present application stands disposed of and the matter be
listed before the learned Additional Registrar for recording
the evidence of the parties.
(Rakesh Kainthla)
Judge
03rd October, 2024
(manish)
