Bhanwarlal vs Bhawarlal
2022 Latest Caselaw 3146 MP

        HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
1                                                              MP No.2550/2021

                               BEFORE
                 HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA

                     ON THE 7th OF MARCH, 2022



                 MISC. PETITION No. 2550 of 2021

     Between:-
   BHANWARLAL S/O LAXMAN GAYARI , AGED ABOUT 42
1. YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST BHUNYAKHEDI,
   TEHSIL MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
   MANISH S/O KESHARIMAL SONI , AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
2. OCCUPATION: BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURIST YASH
   NAGAR MANDSUAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                    .....PETITIONERS
     (BY SHRI V.K. Jain, Senior Adv. with Shri Adarsh Jain Adv.)

     AND

     BHAWARLAL S/O BAPULAL MAHAJAN RICHAWARA , AGED
1.   ABOUT 72 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS GOOL
     CHOURAHA, NAI ABADI, (MADHYA PRADESH)
     HEERALAL S/O LAXMAN GAYARI , AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
2.   OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST BHUNYAKHEDI, TEHSIL
     MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
     COLLECTOR / DISTRICT MAGISTRATE THE STATE OF M.P
3.
     MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
     KAWARLAL S/O LAXMAN GAYARI , AGED ABOUT 32
4.   YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST BHUNYAKHEDI,
     TEHSIL MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
     IRSHAD ALI S/O ASHFAQ ALI , AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
5.   OCCUPATION: SERVICE NEAR NHAR SAYED DARGAH,
     MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                   .....RESPONDENTS
     (BY SHRI Vinay Gandhi Adv.)
This petition coming on for orders this day, the court passed the

following:

         Both the parties are heard.



                              ORDER

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

1/ The petitioners have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 7.4.2021 passed in Civil Suit No.22A/2017, by which 1st Addl. District Judge, Mandsaur has dismissed the application filed under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC.

2/ Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that trial Court has passed the impugned order on an application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff on the ground that such documents are filed at a belated stage and no sufficient reason was shown for taking the aforesaid documents on record. Hence, the impugned order is illegal and bad in law. It is also urged that aforesaid documents are necessary for the just and proper adjudication of the civil suit. The trial Court has failed to consider the aforesaid proposition of law. In the aforesaid circumstances he has prayed for allowing the petition and setting aside the impugned order with a direction to the trial Court to permit the petitioner to take the aforesaid documents on record.

3/ Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. It is submitted that petitioner has not filed such documents at the earlier stage. No justified reason has been shown as to why such documents were not produced before the trial Court at earlier stage. The civil suit is pending since 26.11.2010 and before this petition, similar petition has been filed by the petitioner more than 5 times. He has filed this petition at the stage of evidence, therefore, aforesaid documents cannot be permitted to be brought on record. Learned trial Court after considering the rival submissions made by the parties, has properly dismissed the application.

4/ Both the parties are heard at length and perused all the relevant documents filed by the parties.

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

5/ After perusal of the provisions under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of CPC, it is evident that the documents which are not present along with the plaint by the plaintiff, shall not be accepted at a later stage without the leave of the court. The trial Court has dismissed the petitioner's application on the ground of delay. The coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Rajendra Singh and others Vs. Jagdish Singh and others reported in 2015(III) MPWN 75, 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."

6/ The coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Kamla Bai Vs. Ghanshyam Shrotiya (WP No.7864/2014) dated 8.9.2015 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. 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."

7/ In the present case, the petitioner has filed certain documents before the trial Court, which were the documents of 2021 and the aforesaid documents were not in possession of the petitioner/plaintiff at the earlier stage. These documents are HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

relevant and necessary for the proper adjudication of the civil suit. It will not cause any prejudice to the opponent because evidence of the parties is going on and respondents have every right to cross-examine the petitioner and his witnesses in respect of the said documents. The reason assigned by the petitioner seems to be just and bonafide and it is found that the petitioner could not file these documents before the commencement of trial.

8/ In the considered opinion of this Court, the court below acted not properly in exercise of its jurisdiction. It will be appropriate in the interest of justice that proposed documents be taken on record and some cost may be imposed upon the petitioner.

9/ Consequently the impugned order dated 7.4.2021 passed by the trial Court is hereby set aside and the application filed under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC filed by the petitioner is hereby allowed. Petitioner is directed to pay the cost of Rs.7,000/- to the respondent within 30 days before the trial Court.

10/ Present petition stands disposed of finally on the above terms.

C.C. as per rules.

(Anil Verma) Judge trilok/-

Digitally signed by TRILOK SINGH SAVNER Date: 2022.03.08 19:42:59 +05'30'