Nilesh Surana vs Smt. Raju Bai
2022 Latest Caselaw 5600 MP

                                                                          1
                                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                               AT INDORE
                                                                      BEFORE
                                                          HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
                                                                ON THE 19th OF APRIL, 2022

                                                         MISC. PETITION No. 3671 of 2021

                                            Between:-
                                            NILESH SURANA S/O LATE SHRI NARENDRA
                                            SURANA
                                            R/O: 23 DASHARA MAIDAN G.D.C ROAD, UJJAIN
                                            (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                           .....PETITIONER
                                            (BY Shri S.C. Bagadia, Senior Counsel with Shri D.S. Panwar Adv. )

                                            AND

                                   1.       SMT. RAJU BAI W/O LATE SAGARMAL KHATRI ,
                                            AGED    ABOUT     80   YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                                            AGRICULTURE H.NO. 1 KABIR DAS COLONY
                                            KHEDI MOHALLA TARANA UJJAIN AT PRESENT-
                                            H.NO. A 18/19 BASANT VIHAR COLONY
                                            NANAKHEDA KE PASS (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                   2.       STATE OF M.P. THROUGH COLLECTOR KOTHI
                                            PALACE, UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                        .....RESPONDENTS
                                            (None for respondents No.1 and 2, despite notice has been duly served)

                                         This petition coming on for orders this day, the court passed the following:

                                         Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not want to challenge
                                   the impugned order passed by the trial Court in respect of the application under
                                   Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC.
                                         Counsel for the petitioner heard finally.




                                                                           ORDER

1/ The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 27.9.2021 passed in Civil Suit No.23-A/2018 by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Tarana, District Ujjain, by

Signature Not Verified which an application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of CPC (IA No.3/2020) filed by the SAN

petitioner/plaintiff has been dismissed.

Digitally signed by TRILOK SINGH SAVNER Date: 2022.04.20 19:08:01 IST

2/ Brief facts of the case are that petitioner/plaintiff has filed a civil suit

against the respondent/defendant for specific performance of the contract and issuance of permanent injunction by stating that respondent No.1 Smt. Raju Bai had executed a registered agreement in favour of the petitioner regarding sale of the agricultural land bearing Survey No.223/2 area 1.453 hectare situated at village

Tarana but later on she has denied to perform her part as per the said agreement and she is trying to alienate the suit property to any other person on excessive price. During the pendency of the suit petitioner has filed an application under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC but the trial Court has rejected the same, therefore, petitioner has filed this petition before this Court.

3/ Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is contrary to the law and facts, proposed documents are necessary for the proper adjudication of the matter, plaintiff had supplied the said documents to his previous counsel Shri P.C. Surana but due to the old age and illness his counsel could not file the said documents along with the plaint, issues have been framed and the case is fixed for evidence, there is sufficient ground for taking the documents on record at belated stage, the impugned order passed by the trial Court is illegal, arbitrary and bad in law. Hence he prays that impugned order be set aside and the trial Court be directed to take the aforesaid documents on record.

4/ Nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondents, despite notice has been duly served.

5/ Counsel for the petitioner heard at length and perused all the relevant documents filed by the petitioner.

6/ After perusal of the documents it appears that petitioner/plaintiff has filed the civil suit for specific performance of the contract of sale. The proposed documents are related with the agreement to sale and payment of the sale amount. Counsel for the petitioner submits that documents were already supplied by the petitioner to his earlier counsel, but due to the illness and old age his counsel could not file those documents at the time of filing of the plaint before the trial Court. The Signature Not Verified SAN reason assigned by the petitioner/plaintiff appears to be just, proper and genuine. Digitally signed by TRILOK SINGH SAVNER

7/ The coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Kamla Bai Vs. Date: 2022.04.20 19:08:01 IST

Ghanshyam Shrotiya (W.P. No.7864/2014) order dated 8.9.2015 has held as under:-

"Now such document maybe 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. Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC 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."

8/ In the present case petitioner/plaintiff has filed copy of the documents sought to be produced along with an application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of CPC. These are the documents which may be relevant to prove the case of the plaintiff and it cannot be said that these documents are filed by the plaintiff only to fill up the lacuna in this case. The petitioner has shown sufficient and proper reason for filing these documents at belated stage. Respondent/defendant will have sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the petitioner's witnesses in respect of the above documents and have sufficient opportunity to file certain documents in rebuttal of these documents because evidence has not begun before the trial Court.

9/ In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the trial Court has committed an error in not considering these legal aspects and trial Court has adopted hypertechnical approach while rejecting the application. If the petitioner is permitted to produce these documents, no prejudice is going to be caused to the opponent.

10/ Accordingly this miscellaneous petition is hereby allowed and the impugned order dated 27.9.2021 is hereby set aside and the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of CPC is allowed and the trial Court is Signature Not Verified SAN directed to take the documents on record.

Digitally signed by TRILOK SINGH SAVNER C.C. as per rules.

Date: 2022.04.20 19:08:01 IST

(ANIL VERMA) JUDGE trilok

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by TRILOK SINGH SAVNER Date: 2022.04.20 19:08:01 IST