Jharkhand High Court
M/S Shakambari Builders Pvt. Ltd vs Smt. Rani Sinha on 10 May, 2024
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
C.M.P. No.683 of 2023
------
M/s Shakambari Builders Pvt. Ltd.
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. Smt. Rani Sinha
2. Sri Rajiv Sinha
3. Sri Sanjiv Sinha
4. Ashish Kumar Singh
5. M/s Shahdeo Apartments Pvt. Ltd.
6. Smt. Tirth Rajya Laxmi Shahdeo
7. Kavita Rana
8. Arti Shahdeo
9. Avishkar Nath Shahdeo
10. Agrima Shahdeo .... .... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Prashant Pallav, Advocate
Ms. Shivani Jaluka, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Nipun Bakshi, Advocate
Mr. Shubham Sinha, Advocate
------
04/Dated: 10.05.2024
1. The instant civil misc. petition preferred under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 19.05.2023
passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) V, Ranchi, in Title Suit
No.338 of 2011, whereby and whereunder, the petition dated
20.04.2023 filed under Order VII Rule 14 of the read with Section
151 of the CPC seeking therein the leave of the Court to allow to file
certain documents, i.e., Attested copy of the certificate of
incorporation of M/s Shakambari Builders Pvt. Ltd., attested copy of
the memorandum of Association of M/s Shakambari Builder Pvt. Ltd.,
attested copy of the articles of Association of M/s Shakambari
Builders Pvt. Ltd and extracts of minutes of the meeting of the Board
of Directors of M/s Shakambari Builders Pvt. Ltd, has been declined.
Facts
2. The said petition was duly been objected on the ground that
the petition carries with the reference of seeking of the leave to file
certified copy, but actually, it is not the certified copy. The further
ground has been taken that the said petition has been filed without
assigning any reason regarding its relevance in the suit so as to be
considered by the learned trial court regarding its relevance before
granting leave.
3. The learned trial Court has rejected the said petition, against
which, the present petition.
4. This Court, by hearing the petition, has issued notice upon the
respondents, who are the defendants to the suit.
5. Mr. Nipun Bakshi, learned counsel has appeared by filing the
Vakalatanama on behalf of the R. 1 to 4 and R. 8 to 10.
6. So far as notice issued upon the R. 5, 6 and 7 as per the office
note, notice has validly been served but there is no appearance on
behalf of the aforesaid respondents.
7. This Court, considering the notice, has passed the order of
notice having been validly served upon R. 5, 6 and 7 and
appearance is there on behalf of R. 1 to 4 and R. 8 to 10, who are
being represented by Mr. Nipun Bakshi, has proceeded to examine
the matter on merit.
Argument of the petitioner
8. Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that it is the fact that there is some error in the petition
wherein instead of making reference of attested copy of the
document sought to be filed, reference of certified copy has been
made. But, the same cannot be said to be valid reason to reject the
petition by refusing to grant leave for acceptance of the said
documents, reason being that the said document are having bearing
with the issue and that is the provision under Order VII Rule 14 of the
CPC has been amended by virtue of the amendment in the CPC.
9. But, the learned trial court, without appreciating the aforesaid
facts, has rejected the said petition, hence, the present petition.
Argument of the respondents
10. Mr. Nipun Bakshi, learned counsel for the concerned
respondents has defended the impugned order by making reference
of the petition dated 20.04.2023, wherein, the reference of certified
copy has been made by seeking leave by filing petition under Order
VII Rule 14 of the CPC, but the certified copy was not available with
the said petition, therefore, the learned trial court by assigning the
reason that the document is neither original nor certified and as
such, the aforesaid ground cannot be said to suffer from an error.
11. The further submission has been made that by seeking the
leave, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to assign the reason
regarding the relevance of the said document, but it would be evident
from petition that there is no reason for acceptance of the said
document while seeking leave and hence, the learned trial Court has
also taken the said ground in addition to the ground that the said
document ought to have been filed before framing of the issue.
12. Learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid ground, has
submitted that the impugned order may not be interfered with.
Analysis
13. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and
gone across the pleading made in the petition as also the finding
recorded by the learned trial court in the impugned order.
14. This Court, before entering into the legality and propriety of the
impugned order, deems it fit and proper to refer the provision of
Order VII Rule 14 of the CPC, which read as under:-
"14. Production of document on which plaintiff sues or
relies.--
(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.
(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 presented, or to be entered in the list
to be 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.]
(4) Nothing in this rule shall apply to document produced for the
cross-examination of the plaintiffs witnesses, or handed over to
a witness merely to refresh his memory.]"
15. It is evident therefrom that the said provision has been
amended also by way of amendment incorporated in the CPC in the
year, 2002, wherein, the provision has been inserted that if the
document could not have been filed at the appropriate stage, hence,
in the ends of justice, if subsequently any document, is considered to
be filed which is having bearing on the issue then such document
can also be filed but the same can only be accepted with the leave of
the court.
16. Herein, at the time of filing of the suit, the said documents
could not have been filed. It has been contended orally that the said
original order of certified copy of the said documents were not
available with the plaintiff at the time of filing of the suit. However,
subsequently, it has been realized that the said document is having
bearing and hence by downloading it from the website of Registrar of
Companies (ROC), the same, on consideration of the content therein
has been thought to be brought on record and for that purpose, a
petition was filed under Order VII Rule 14 of the CPC for seeking
leave to accept the said documents.
17. The said petition is available on record, whereby and
whereunder, while making such prayer, the reference of certified
copy has been made as under paragraph-2. The said petition was
responded by raising the serious objection.
18. The learned court has accepted the said objection and rejected
the said petition, against which, the present petition.
19. It needs to refer herein the underlined object of Order VII Rule
14 of the CPC, whereby and whereunder, the legislation has been
made by inserting the amended provision by conferring power upon
the civil court to grant leave if due to the mistake or inadvertence,
any document could not have been filed at the initial stage of the
suit.
20. The purpose of legislation by insertion of the said statutory
provision is that due to want of document, a party may not be
allowed to suffer. Therefore, while dealing with the issue for granting
leave, the concerned court is required to take liberal view for the
purpose of acceptance of the document, however, while taking such
view, it is also incumbent upon the concerned trial court to see that
other side may not be prejudiced.
21. Therefore, a balance is to be made for the purpose of causing
no injustice to either of the parties.
22. Herein, in the instant case, this Court has found from the
petition that certain documents have been sought to be filed after
seeking leave, as has been referred hereinabove. However, the
reference of the certified copy has been referred therein.
23. Admittedly, no certified copy has been filed, since, in course of
argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
the same was due to inadvertence.
24. It has further been submitted that subsequently, the same has
been rectified by making reference of the attested copy of the
aforesaid document which has also been referred by the learned trial
court, as would be evident from the order dated 19.05.2023, wherein,
the reference of the attested copy of the document has been made.
But, the learned trial court has not considered the aforesaid aspect of
the matter, rather, has cancelled the petition on the ground that the
said documents have neither been original nor certified. The further
reason for seeking leave has also not been granted, as also the
document having not been filed before framing the issue.
25. The reference, at this juncture is need to be made regarding
the purport of the provision as under Order VII Rule 14 as has been
considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kapil Kumar
Sharma Vrs. Lalit Kumar Sharma & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 612,
wherein, it would be evident from paragraph-3 that although, in the
said case, the stage of trial was that the cross-examination has not
yet commenced and in such circumstances, the Hon'ble Apex Court
has opined in order to not cause any prejudice to the party
particularly the plaintiff, as per the facts of the said case, such leave
is to be granted, for ready reference, paragraph nos.2, 3 and 4 of the
said judgment are being referred as under:-
"2. The learned Single Judge by his said order
dismissed the application and the said order was
upheld by the Division Bench seemingly on the
ground that the matters were ready for hearing and
were at the stage of cross-examination and,
accordingly, such prayer could not be granted.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the
respective parties, we are unable to agree with the
decision of the Division Bench as also the Single
Bench as we have been informed that the cross-
examination has not yet commenced. In such a
situation, we see no reason for debarring the
appellant from filing the additional documents in
support of his claim.
4. We accordingly, allow the appeals and set aside
the orders passed, both by the Division Bench as
also the Single Bench and allow the appellant's
application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC and direct
that the additional documents filed by the appellant
be taken up for consideration subject to proof
thereof."
26. In the judgment rendered in the case of Levaku Pedda
Reddamma & Ors. Vrs. Gottumukkala Venkata Subbamma &
Anr., 2022 Live Law (SC) 533, wherein, in the said case, the order
has been passed in the pretext of consideration of the Order VIII
Rule 1A (3) of the CPC whereby the provision has been made
permitting the defendants to produce the documents and if it could
not have been produced at the appropriate stage, the same can be
accepted subsequently also.
27. The Hon'ble Apex Court, while dealing with the said provision
has observed that the rules of procedure are hand-maid of justice
and therefore, even if there is some delay, the trial court should have
imposed some costs rather than to decline the production of the
documents itself, consequently, the appeal was allowed by quashing
and setting aside the order passed by the concerned court permitting
the defendants concerned to file the documents and to prove the
same in accordance with law.
28. Here, in the present facts and circumstances of the case also,
the reason which has been shown that is the document was not
original or certified, there is no reason as to why such document has
been filed after framing of the issue, which this Court considers that
the hyper technical approach has been taken by the concerned court
ignoring the aforesaid fact.
29. This Court, therefore, is of the view on the aforesaid ground
that the opportunity to file the document for its consideration, was
required to be adjudged by the concerned court. However, such
occasion has not come to the learned court in absence of the reason
in the said petition.
30. This Court, therefore, is of the view that a chance is required to
be given to the plaintiff to file a fresh petition assigning the due
reason of relevance of the said documents in order to substantiate
the bearing upon the suit.
31. In view thereof, the order dated 19.05.2023 passed by the Civil
Judge (Sr. Div.) V, Ranchi in Title Suit No.338 of 2011 is hereby
quashed and set aside.
32. In the result, the instant petition stands allowed
33. The plaintiff/defendant is at liberty to file fresh application
assigning therein the reason of relevance of the document, as also,
as has been submitted by Mr. Prashant Pallav, that now the certified
copy of the said document is available and the same will be filed.
34. Accordingly, such liberty is being granted to the petitioner for its
consideration by the concerned court.
35. It has been informed in course of argument that two of the
plaintiff witnesses have already been cross-examined, if that be so,
and in case of acceptance of the said document, the defendant will
have a chance to make objection of the said document, so that the
defendant may not be prejudiced.
36. Pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
Rohit/-A.F.R.
