Madhya Pradesh High Court
Late Shivprasad Verma Through Lrs ... vs Chandrakanta Mehta on 8 February, 2022
Author: Anil Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 8th OF FEBRUARY, 2022
MISC. PETITION No. 180 of 2022
Between:-
LATE SHIVPRASAD VERMA THROUGH LRS MOHINI SHAKYA W/O
1. JAYANTI LAL SHAKYA OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE SHAKTI
TENOMENT C-53, ITANPUR, AHMEDABAD GUJRAT (GUJARAT)
LATE SHIVPRASAD VERMA THROUGH LRS NEELAM VERMA W/O
2. SANJAY VERMA A/19, VINAYAK APARTMENT , C 53/1, SECTOR 62,
NOIDA NTPC (UTTAR PRADESH)
LATE SHIVPRASAD VERMA THROUGH LRS RAJNI VIPALAVDAS
3. 1402-3, SCHEME NO. 114 PART 1, VIJAY NAGAR, INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
LATE SHIVPRASAD VERMA THROUGH LRS SANJAY VERMA S/O
4. LATE SHIVPRASAD VERMA 240, SETHI NAGAR, INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
LATE SHIVPRASAD VERMA THROUGH LRS SHAILENDRA VERMA
5. S/O LATE SHIVPRASAD 240, SETHI NAGAR, INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
LATE SHIVPRASAD VERMA THROUGH LRS SHAKUNTALA
6. VERMA 240, SETHI NAGAR, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SIDHARTH SINGH, ADV0CATE )
AND
CHANDRAKANTA MEHTA W/O MOHANLAL , AGED ABOUT 66
YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS 47, PRAKASH NAGAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI )
(Heard through Video Conferencing)
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed
the following:
ORDER
The petitioners have filed present petition under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the impugned order dated
21/12/2021 passed by the 11th Additional District Judge, Indore in Civil
Suit no. 5-A/2009, by which the application filed under Order 7 Rule
14 read with section 151 of CPC filed by the respondent/plaintiff has
been allowed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that learned
trial Court has passed the impugned order dated 21/12/2021 on the
application filed by the respondent/plaintiff without considering the
documents advanced by the petitioners. The trial Court has erroneously
allowed the application with misconceived reasoning that since the
plaintiff's evidence was going on, it was okay to allow such application
. The impugned order was passed by the trial Court without applying
its mind and mechanically allowed the said application. The
documents, which are presented by the plaintiff, could have produced
before the Court at the time of filing of the suit. The plaintiff did not
avert proper reason for delay. The plaintiff is trying to re-start the
evidence by subverting the law through the application. The trial court
did not consider settle legal objection raised by the petitioner, hence,
he prays that the impugned order be set aside.
3. To bolster his contentions, learned counsel for the
petitioner has placed his reliance upon the judgment delivered in the
case of Smt. Leena bai and others Vs. Smt. Durgabai and others
(MP no. 113/2021 decided on 28/10/2021); Ramsingh Rawas Vs.
State of M.P and others ( MP no 699/2021 decided on 23/02/2021);
Babulal Namdev Vs. Gulab Singh Sarna ( MP no. 923/2019
decided on 20/12/2021); Anil Agrawal Vs. Nitesh Agrawal (MP no.
2089/2021 decided on 11/11/2021 as well as the judgment delivered
by High Court of Anhdra Pradesh in the case of G. Sanjeeva Reedy
(died) and others Vs. Indukuru Lakshmamma and others reported
in 2006 (1) APLJ 465 (HC).
4. In the present case, the respondent/plaintiff has filed
copies of documents said to be produced along with the application
under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of CPC, which were obtained by the plaintiff
on 08/11/2021. Earlier, the documents were not in possession of the
plaintiff, therefore, the plaintiff were unable to produce the aforesaid
documents at the time of filing of the plaint. Those are the documents,
which are public documents and these documents may be relevant to
prove place of the plaintiff and it cannot be said that these documents
are filed by the plaintiff to fill up the lacuna of this case. The
respondent/plaintiff has shown proper and sufficient reason for filing
these documents with delay. Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the
case of Smt. Kamla Bai Vs. Ghanshyam Shrotiya (W.P.
No.7864/2014) dated 08.09.2015 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"
The Apex Court in the case of Rani Kusum Vs. Smt. Kanchan
Devi and another, Appeal (Civil) 5066 of 2005 has held as under:-
"No person has a vested right in any course of
procedure. He has only the right of prosecution or defence
in the manner for the time being by or for the Court in
which the case is pending, and if, by an Act of Parliament
the mode of procedure is altered, he has no other right than
to proceed according to the altered mode. (See Blyth v.
Blyth (1966 (1) All E.R. 524 (HL). A procedural law should
not ordinarily be construed as mandatory, the procedural
law is always subservient to and is in aid to justice. Any
interpretation which eludes or frustrates the recipient of
justice is not to be followed. (See Shreenath and Anr.
v.Rajesh and Ors. (AIR 1998 SC 1827) Processual law is
not to be a tyrant but a servant, not an obstruction but an aid
to justice. Procedural prescriptions are the handmaid and not
the mistress, a lubricant, not a resistant in the administration
of justice"
5. The petitioner/defendants have sufficient opportunity to
file proper application before the trial Court for further cross-
examination of the witnesses in respect of the aforesaid documents.
The petitioners may also adduce evidence in rebuttal at the time of the
defendant's evidence, therefore, no prejudice and grave in justice is
caused to the petitioners.
6. In view of the aforesaid discussions and analysis, no
ground is made out to interfere with the impugned order.
7. Accordingly, present petition devoid of merit, is hereby
dismissed. No order as to costs.
Certified copy, as per Rules.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
Digitally signed by AMOL
N MAHANAG
Date: 2022.02.08 17:07:55
+05'30'
