Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Girja vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 April, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9408
1 MP-3399-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 29th OF APRIL, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 3399 of 2024
SMT. GIRJA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Gaurav Mishra - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri M.S. Jadon - Govt. Advocate for the State.
ORDER
The present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated
16.05.2024 passed by First Civil Judge, Senior Division, Khaniyadana,
District Shivpuri in Civil Suit No.26-A of 2022 whereby an application
under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC read with Section 151 of CPC preferred
by the petitioner/plaintiff for taking certain documents on record, which
were already filed alongwith the list of documents, was rejected.
2. The aforesaid order has been assailed on the ground that the
rejection is solely based upon delay in filing the application and the
documents as well as though amply opportunity was granted to the
petitioner/plaintiff to lead her evidence, the evidence was not led and the
present application was moved, which in the circumstances were held
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9408
2 MP-3399-2024
not to be genuine and as the said finding since being dehors the
provisions of Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC is liable to be quashed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted before this
Court that the grounds, on which the application has been rejected, are
not tenable in the eyes of law, as the provisions of Order 7 Rule 14 of
CPC doesn't prescribe any limitation for production of the documents
rather only prescribes that if any document which is relevant for the
purpose of adjudication of the matter is produced before the Court then
only the relevancy of the said documents and the stage of the case is to
be seen and if it is found that without bringing the said documents on
record, the case can be adjudicated properly, then only Court can
exercise its jurisdiction and reject the request made by the parties but
herein case, the relevancy of the said documents was not gone into rather
on account of delay and for not showing any reason for not submitting of
the said documents at an early stage, the said application was rejected,
which is per se illegal. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance in
the matters of Smt. Usha Kiran Saxena vs. Amit Maheshwari & Others
passed in M.P. No.5657 of 2023, decided on 08.01.2025 and Gopal
Adwani vs. Rishab Khandelwal & Other passed in M.P. No.7675 of
2023, decided on 04.03.2023.
4. On the basis of the aforesaid arguments, it was prayed that the
present petition be allowed and the order impugned herein be set aside.
5. Per contra, learned Govt. Advocate for the State submits that the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9408
3 MP-3399-2024
very suit preferred by the petitioner/plaintiff was not maintainable, as the
land in question is the Government land and was given on patta to her,
but in the year 2017, it has been taken back from her, therefore, when the
very suit itself is not maintainable, the present petition being without any
sum and substance deserves to be dismissed.
6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. Order 7 Rule 14(3) of CPC lays down that 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.
Thus, a discretion has been casted upon the learned Trial Court to grant
leave for production of the documents but the said discretion vested in
the Court obviously has to be exercised on the principle of fair play,
equity and justice. The object behind Order 7 Rule 14 (3 ) CPC is to
enable the parties to rectify their mistake or inability to produce the
documents at the later point of time in a suit in support of the plaint
which ought to have been produced alongwith the plaint and it can be
said that the provision is remedial in nature which deserves liberal
interpretation to enable the object of said provision to be achieved.
8. In the matter of Allahabad Bank v. All India Allahabad Bank
Retired Employees Assn. reported in (2010) 2 SCC 44 ), the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held as under:
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9408
4 MP-3399-2024
"16. We shall proceed to examine the point urged
by the learned counsel for the appellant. Remedial
statutes, in contradistinction to penal statutes, are known
as welfare, beneficent or social justice oriented
legislations. Such welfare statutes always receive a
liberal construction. They are required to be so construed
so as to secure the relief contemplated by the statute. It is
well settled and needs no restatement at our hand that
labour and welfare legislation have to be broadly and
liberally construed having due regard to the directive
principles of State policy. The act with which we are
concerned for the present is undoubtedly one such
welfare oriented legislation meant to confer certain
benefits upon the employees working in various
establishments in the country."
9. The said legal position has been reiterated by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the matter of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
v. Hooghly Mills Company Ltd. & Others reported in (2012) 2 SCC 489.
10. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Chandan
Singh (dead) Lrs. Kanchan Bai & Others vs. Deewan Singh in Para 8
has held as under:
"The denial of prayer for production of documents
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9408
5 MP-3399-2024
is justified only when the court can objectively sense
oblique motive of the plaintiff to delay the trial. The
court can very well impose appropriate cost on erring
party instead of outright denial. If this course is adopted
then the trial court will have better material to discover
the truth which is the ultimate object to be achieved in
every trial.
The trial court while rejecting the application
under Order 7 Rule 14 (3 ) CPC has neither recorded
that any prejudice shall visit the defendants if the
document sought to be produced by the plaintiff are
taken on record, nor any cogent findings have been
recorded that the suit is being unnecessarily delayed to
the extent that denial of application under Order 7 Rule
14 (3) is unavoidable."
11. This Court in the matter of Smt. Kamlabai & Another vs.
Ghanshyam Shrotiya & Others [Writ Petition No.7864 of 2014, decided on
08.09.2015 ] has held that "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 for one
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9408
6 MP-3399-2024
of the corroborative evidences in support of the claim made in the plaint.
Order 7 Rule 14(3) of 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."
12. In view of the said judgment, 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.
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Smt. Rani Kusum
vs Smt. Kanchan Devi And Others passed in Civil Appeal No.5066 of
2005, decided on 16 August, 2005 has held that "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 reported in 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. reported in
AIR 1998 SC 1827]. Procedural 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:9408
7 MP-3399-2024
14. This Court, in the light of aforesaid judgments, holds that the
present application under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC deserves to be
allowed and accordingly, it is hereby allowed. As the
respondents/defendants will have sufficient opportunity to file
application before the learned Trial Court for further cross-examination
of the witnesses of the aforesaid documents and will have every
opportunity to adduce evidence in rebuttal at the time of hearing of the
matter, therefore, no prejudice or grave injustice would be caused to the
respondents. Accordingly, the order impugned herein, to the extent of
rejection of the application under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC, being
perverse and illegal cannot sustain judicial scrutiny hereby set aside.
Learned Trial Court is directed to allow the petitioners to place the
documents on record.
15. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present
petition is allowed and disposed of.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
pwn*
