Satyanarayan Paliwal vs Mukesh Patel
2021 Latest Caselaw 6508 MP

 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE

M.P. No.633/2021                                                                                          -1-




                         Miscellaneous Petition No.633/2021


                                   Satyanarayan Paliwal

                                                     Vs.

                                Mukesh Patel and others

...............................................................................................................
          Ms. Manjula Mukati, learned counsel for the petitioner.

     Shri Pourush Ranka, learned counsel for the respondent
Nos.1 to 5.
...............................................................................................................

                                         ORDER

(Passed on 8th October, 2021)

The petitioner has filed this present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India feeling aggrieved by the impugned order dated 04.02.2021 passed by 4 th Additional District Judge, Mandsaur in RCS No.6-A/2013 whereby an application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC has been rejected.

02. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition is that the plaintiff/petitioner filed a civil suit before the competent jurisdiction of civil court for specific performance of sale agreement dated 08.08.2008 regarding the sale of disputed land bearing survey No.692, area 0.052 hectare and survey No.694 area 0.773 hectare situated at Mandsaur.

03. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE

the petitioner/plaintiff had moved an application under Order 7 Rule 14 of C.P.C. for bringing on record the documents dated 15.10.2010, which had been written by the defendant. He contended that regarding sale of agreement, the defendant did not clear his stand and not stated before the Court below, therefore, the said document is relevant and necessary for the adjudication of the dispute, but the court below has rejected his application. The trial court has failed to consider proper proposition of law and rejected the application on the ground of inordinate delay being caused in filing the application. In above circumstances, he prays that the impugned order dated 04.02.2021 be set aside and his application under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC be accepted and the concerned documents be also taken on record.

04. On the other hand, the respondents have supported the impugned order and stated that the application was filed for taking the documents on record without any viable reason for the inordinate delay, hence, the petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.

05. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

06. From bare perusal of the record of the court below, it is apparently clear that the civil suit is pending for consideration since 2013 and at the stage of defendant's evidence, the petitioner has filed the application under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC. The Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC is required to be seen which reads as HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE

under:-

"Order 7 Rule 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 plaintiff's witnesses, or, handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory."

07. The petitioner has filed the application under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC at a belated stage i.e. at the stage of defendant's evidence. It is settled principle of law that the documents, which are not part of the pleadings and the documents which are not on record and exhibited cannot be taken into consideration while deciding the civil suit. The petitioner did not mention anything regarding the documents which are mentioned in the list of documents filed along with the said application. In his plaint, even he has not produced any evidence regarding the aforesaid documents in the plaintiff's evidence. In the application filed by HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE

the petitioner, no reason has been assigned for filing the application at the belated stage of trial.

08. In the present case, evidence of plaintiff is already over and defendant's evidence is at last stage and permitting such documents to be taken on record will amount to opening of the case from initial stage of evidence of the plaintiffs and re- opening of such case that too for the negligence or omission on the part of plaintiffs cannot be allowed.

09. Further scope of interference in the proceedings under Article 227 of Constitution of India is very limited as was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil (2010) 8 SCC 329 : (2010 AIR SCW 6387) formulating the principles for exercise of High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case in paragraph No.49 has held as under:-

"49 (a) In any event, a petition under Article 227 cannot be called a writ petition. The history of the conferment of writ jurisdiction on High Courts is substantially different from the history of conferment of the power of Superintendence on the High Courts under Article 227 and have been discussed above.

(b) High Courts cannot, on the drop of a hat, in exercise of its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution, interfere with the orders of tribunals or Courts inferior to it. Nor can it, in exercise of this power, act as a Court of appeal over the orders of Court or tribunal subordinate to it. In cases where an alternative HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE

statutory mode of redressal has been provided, that would also operate as a restrain on the exercise of this power by the High Court.

(c) In exercise of its power of superintendence High Court cannot interfere to correct mere errors of law or fact or just because another view than the one taken by the tribunals or Courts subordinate to it, is a possible view in other words the jurisdiction has to be very sparingly exercised."

10. In light of the aforesaid judgment as no patent illegality has been committed by the trial court and the impugned order passed by the trial court does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order dated 04.02.2021, the petition sans no merits and is hereby dismissed. However, the trial court is directed to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. In case, the suit is decided against the present petitioner, he shall be free to take a ground raised in the present petition while preferring an appeal.

No order as to costs.

Certified copy as per rules.

(Anil Verma) Judge N.R.

Digitally signed by NARENDRA KUMAR RAIPURIA Date: 2021.10.08 18:49:18 +05'30'