Anil vs Nitesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 7278 MP

 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE

                         M.P. No.2089/2021
                 (Anil Agrawal Vs. Nitesh Agrawal)
                                                                   -1-

Indore, dated 11/11/2021
      Shri Akshay Bhonde, learned counsel for the petitioner.

      Shri Vaibhav Jain, learned counsel for the respondent.

The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 16.06.2021 passed in Civil Suit No.11-A/2011 by which Civil Judge, Class-I, Barwah, West Niman has dismissed the application filed under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC r/w Section 151 of C.P.C.

02. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned trial court has passed the impugned order dated 16.06.2021 on an application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff on the ground that such documents are filed at a belated stage and no sufficient reasons is shown for taking the aforesaid documents on record. Hence, the impugned order is illegal and bad in law. It is also urged that the aforesaid documents are necessary for the just and proper disposal of the civil suit. The trial court has failed to consider the aforesaid proposition of law in the aforesaid fact. He has prayed for allowing the petition and set aside the impugned order with a direction to the trial court to permit the petitioner to bring the aforesaid documents on record.

03. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has vehementally opposed the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff. It is also submitted that the petitioner have not filed copies of the aforesaid documents before this Court. No justified reason has been shown as to why such documents were not produced before the trial court at earlier stage. This civil suit HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE

M.P. No.2089/2021 (Anil Agrawal Vs. Nitesh Agrawal)

was filed in the year 2011 and after lapse of 10 years, the petitioner/plaintiff wants that seventy five documents be brought on record. At the stage of defendant's evidence, the aforesaid documents cannot not be permitted to be brought on record. Learned trial court after considering the rival submissions made by the parties dismissed the application.

04. The provisions contained in Order 7 Rule 14(3) of C.P.C. reads as under:-

"Provisions contained in Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC are as under :-

"Order 7- Plaint

Rule 14. Production of document on which plaintiff sues or relies.-

(1)..

(2)...

(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.""

05. In the case of Mahavir Prasad Jain Vs. Shambhoo Kchbandiya, reported in 2005 (1) M.P. Weekly Note SN 76, it has has been held as under:-

"It is seen that under Order 7 Rule 14(3) power is vested in the Court to grant relief to receive in evidence any document which is not produced or filed by the plaintiff along with the plaint. This power has to be exercised judicially for the purpose if advancing the course of justice, it is not to be used in such a manner so as to cause injustice to any of the parties. In the opinion of this Court, the HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE

M.P. No.2089/2021 (Anil Agrawal Vs. Nitesh Agrawal)

learned Court below has not exercised its power after considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and merely on the ground that the document as available hen written statement was filed by the defendant and on the ground of delay, application has been rejected.

06. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon a judgment delivered by the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Rajendra Singh and others Vs. Jagdish Singh and others, 2015 (III) MPWN 75. The coordinate Bench has held as under:-

"The aspect of delay cannot be mechanically applied without considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. In the present case, in the fitness of things, in my view the Court below should have allowed the applications preferred by the plaintiff. Merely because in certain applications, plaintiff has mentioned that the same are filed under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC, the prayer will not be without any basis because the power of the trial Court to take those documents on record can be traced from the other provisions of the CPC"

07. Learned counsel has also placed reliance upon the judgment delivered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Madhoprasad Vs. Firm Bidhichand & Sons, 1980 (I) MPWN,

43. In this case, the coordinate Bench of this Court has held as under:-

"This amounts to acting contrary to provisions of Order 7 rule 18 CPC . Therefore, the plaintiff cannot be non-suited on the ground of non-

production of the rent-note, but at the most the HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE

M.P. No.2089/2021 (Anil Agrawal Vs. Nitesh Agrawal)

case may be remitted back for the cross-

examination of the defendant. It was further argued that it is a document admitted in pleadings. Therefore, the trial has been rendered radically defective by refused of permission to bring it on record by the method and in the manner the plaintiff wanted to produce it, Order 13 rule 2 CPC is not attracted to the situation. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the appeal deserves to be allowed and the case deserves to be sent back to the trial Court for the purpose hereinafter indicated. "

08. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance upon the judgment delivered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Kamla Bai Vs. Ghanshyam Shrotiya (W.P. No.7864/2014) dated 08.09.2015. In this case, the coordinate Bench of this Court has held as under:-

"now such document may be received in evidence with the leave of the Court, which the Court shall grant in genuine cases. Thus, if any document or a copy thereof could not be filed with the plaint, it may be received in evidence with the leave of the Court, which the Court shall grant in genuine cases. Rigour of the Rule does not apply to the documents which are sought to be adduced or corroborative evidence in support of the claim made in the plaint. O.7 R. 14 (3) C.P.C. enables the Court to receive the documents which are not filed along with the plaint in genuine cases. Obviously the object of this provision is to avoid delay." In view of these judgments, it is clear that when documents are necessary, the application may be allowed even if it is belatedly filed. The genuineness of documents etc. cannot be gone into at this stage"

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE

M.P. No.2089/2021 (Anil Agrawal Vs. Nitesh Agrawal)

09. After perusal of the provisions under Order 7 Rule 14 (III), it is evident that the documents, which have not been presented along with the plaint by the plaintiff, shall not be accepted at a later stage without leave of this Court. In the present case, the aforesaid 75 documents, which are sought to be filed are of the year 2001. As per the petitioner, the aforesaid documents were in his possession but they were misplaced and despite many efforts, he could not find them at earlier stage but after repeated search with hard efforts, he found those documents in his house situated at Barwah as these documents were placed in a wooden almirah along with other documents.

10. The shown reasons do not seem to be justified, therefore, the petitioner/plaintiff has failed to show the reasons as to why these documents, which were kept in his possession since long back could not be produced before the Court within the reasonable period. In the present case, the petitioner has failed to establish that due diligence, the documents were neither pleaded nor were filed during the evidence. The respondent will have no opportunity to cross-examine the petitioner or his witness in respect of the aforesaid documents. The respondent shall not have any opportunity to rebut the same also. It seems that if the application of the petitioner is allowed and he is permitted to file the documents then after completion of the evidence, the petitioner/plaintiff will have apparently an attempt to cure the defects and also have an attempt to re-open the case. It is also noteworthy, if the said application is allowed, the petitioner shall HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE

M.P. No.2089/2021 (Anil Agrawal Vs. Nitesh Agrawal)

try to amend the plaint and thereafter, pray for adducing the additional evidence, which would be gross misuse of the process of law and would also cause delay for adjudication of the matter, which is pending since last more than 11 years.

11. Apart from this, it is also noteworthy that the petitioner did not produce copies of the aforesaid documents before this Court and he has not explained as to how these documents are relevant for adjudication of the matter.

12. In view of the above, no patent illegality has been committed by the trial court and the impugned order passed by the trial court does not suffer from jurisdictional error, hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 16.06.2021. The present petition sans merit is hereby dismissed.

No orders as to cost.

(Anil Verma) Judge N.R.

Digitally signed by NARENDRA KUMAR RAIPURIA Date: 2021.11.12 17:32:32 +05'30'