Madhya Pradesh High Court
Tulsiram vs Saroj on 7 May, 2024
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 7 th OF MAY, 2024
MISC. PETITION No. 731 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
TULSIRAM S/O DURGASHANKAR RAGHUVANSHI,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST R/O 52 BIMA NAGAR INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
( BY SHRI REVAT SINGH RAGHUVANSHI - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. SAROJ D/O LADURAM MIMROT, AGED ABOUT 66
YEARS, R/O 1056 JUNIOR MIG INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. SMT. RADHA W/O HEMRAJ MAHOBIYA 125
JAGJEEVANRAM NAGAR INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
( NONE FOR THE RESPONDENTS )
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 06/09/2023
passed in RCSA NO 7100063/2016 by which XIII Civil Judge, Class-II, Indore
has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 7 Rule
14 of CPC.
2/ Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that he has filed civil
suit for mandatory injunction and possession before the trial Court and filed an
application under Order 7 Rule 14 of C.PC, but the same has been dismissed
by the trial Court on the ground that such documents are filed are filed at a
belated stage and the said documents are only photocopies 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/ Despite service of notice, nobody appeared on behalf of the
respondents.
4/ Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
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 regarding Panchshala Khasra, Panchanama ect, which are related
to the suit land. The petitioner may file original copy of the said documents at
time of recording of the evidence. The document may be 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 06/09/2023 passed in
RCSA NO 7100063/2016 by which III Civil Judge, Class-II, Indore 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.2,000/-
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
amol
