Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dheeraj Goubhuj vs Phoolchand on 11 February, 2022
Author: Anil Verma
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE
MP No.3079/2021
Dheeraj Goubhuj and others
Vs.
Phoolchand and others
-1-
Indore, dated 11/02/2022
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri H.C. Tripati, learned counsel for the petitioner.
None for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 despite service of notice.
Shri Kapil Mahant, learned panel lawyer for the respondent No.3.
Matter is heard finally at motion stage.
The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India being aggrieved by the impugned order dated
18.08.2021 passed in civil suit No.76A/2019 by which the Civil Judge,
Senior Division, Tarana dismissed the application filed under Order 7
Rule 14 (3) of CPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that learned trial court
has passed the impugned order dated 18.08.2021 on an application filed
by the petitioner/plaintiff on the ground that above document was not
filed at the time of filing of the plaint or before framing of issues. But,
above documents were misplaced in the home and as soon as the plaintiff
found the documents, he immediately filed before the trial court. Hence,
the impugned order is illegal and bad in law. It is also urged that the
aforesaid documents are necessary for just and proper adjudication of the
litigation. The trial court has failed to consider the aforesaid proposition
of law. In the aforesaid fact, he prays that his application be allowed and
the impugned order be set aside with a direction to the trial court to permit
the petitioner to bring the aforesaid documents on record.
Despite service of notice, no body has appeared on behalf of the
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE
MP No.3079/2021
Dheeraj Goubhuj and others
Vs.
Phoolchand and others
respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant
documents filed by the petitioner.
The provisions contained in the Order 7 Rule 14 (3) of CPC reads
as under:-
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." "
From perusal of the record, it is apparently clear that civil suit is
pending since 2017 and the application under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC
was filed at the belated stage i.e. at the stage of plaintiff's evidence. But,
from the perusal of the plaint, it is apparently clear that description of the
aforesaid document was mentioned in the pleading of the plaint, therefore,
the aforesaid documents are necessary for just and proper adjudication of
the litigation.
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE
MP No.3079/2021
Dheeraj Goubhuj and others
Vs.
Phoolchand and others
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 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"
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE
MP No.3079/2021
Dheeraj Goubhuj and others
Vs.
Phoolchand and others
Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the
aforesaid document was missing at the time of filing of the plaint,
therefore, plaintiff's were unable to produce the same at the earlier stage.
These are the documents, which are public documents and said
documents may be relevant to prove the case of the plaintiffs and it
cannot be said that these documents are filed by the plaintiffs to fill-up
lacuna of his case. The plaintiff/petitioner has shown the sufficient and
proper reasons for filing the documents at belated stage. But, trial court
did not consider all the contentions, therefore, the impugned order
passed by the trial court suffers from jurisdictional error and it will
cause serious prejudice to the petitioner.
In the considered opinion of this Court, the Court below has not
acted properly in exercising its jurisdiction and it would be appropriate
in the interest of justice that the aforesaid documents should be taken
on record. Consequently, the impugned order 18.08.2021 passed by the
trial court is set aside and the application filed under Order 7 Rule 14
(3) of CPC by the petitioner/plaintiff is hereby allowed. The trial court
is directed to take the aforesaid documents on record.
There is no order as to costs.
(Anil Verma)
Judge
N.R.
Digitally signed
by NARENDRA
KUMAR RAIPURIA
Date: 2022.02.14
19:47:30 +05'30'
