Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramdayal vs Santosh on 30 April, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
Misc. Petition No.7018 of 2024
Ramdayal & Others
Vs.
Santosh & Others
APPERANCE
Shri H.K. Shukla - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Akash Jain - Advocate for respondents.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 25/04/2025
Delivered on : 30/4/2025
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This petition having been heard and reserved for orders, coming
on for pronouncement this day, the Hon'ble Shri Justice Milind
Ramesh Phadke pronounced/passed the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
The present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated
06.12.2024 passed by First Civil Judge, Senior Division, Khaniyadana,
District Shivpuri in Civil Suit No.46-A/2023; whereby, an application
under Order 7 Rule 14(3) alongwith Section 151 of CPC filed by the
plaintiffs/petitioners has been dismissed. Assailing the said order to be
illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction, the present petition has been
filed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the present petitioners/plaintiffs had
filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction with regard to
agricultural land situated at Village Salaiya Khurd, Tahsil Khaniyadana,
District Shivpuri alleging therein that after the death of Ghokabi, Ghansiya
Puniram sold the land in question to Saraswati Bai through a registered
sale deed on 01.01.1989 and the plaintiffs/petitioners, who are adopted
sons of Ghansiya Puniram, had inherited the land after her death, thus,
they are owners of the land in question. The defendants without having
any right and title over the disputed property, had obstructed them from
cultivating the land. When the plaintiffs came to know that name of one
Rajveer has been mutated in the revenue records over the land in question
illegally, the present suit came to be filed.
3. During pendency of the suit, the petitioners/plaintiffs had filed an
application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of CPC for taking certified copies of
certain revenue documents on record. The respondents/defendants had
filed reply to the said application denying the averments made therein.
Learned Trial Court, after hearing the parties, rejected the application vide
impugned order dated 06.12.2024. Hence, the present petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued before this Court that
the impugned order herein is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction,
hence, deserves to be quashed/set aside, as it is without considering the
documents which were placed by the petitioners/plaintiffs to be taken
on record for adjudication of the matter.
5. It was further submitted that it is settled principles of law that such
finding on admissibility or reliability can be recorded during proof of the
documents at the time of oral evidence, when an objection to that effect is
taken by the other side.
6. It was further submitted that the ground for rejection of the
application by the learned Trial Court that no explanation has been given
by petitioners/plaintiffs for not presenting the documents with plaint is
wholly misconceived, as the provisions of the said order has been
incorporated for dealing with such eventuality where documents could not
be produced or could not be mentioned at the time of filing of the plaint
and as the same are very crucial piece of evidence for deciding the
controversy in hand, which goes to the very root of matter, the learned
Trial Court should have allowed the said application.
7. It was further argued that though plausible explanation was
afforded by the petitioners/plaintiffs for not bringing those documents at
earlier point of time but without considering the aforesaid explanation,
the said application has been rejected, which is per se illegal.
8. It was further argued that certain documents which were part of
the revenue records were not available with the petitioners at the time of
the filing of the suit and since those documents were relevant for the
purpose of determining the controversy between the parties, the same
were required to be taken on record. In the aforesaid regard, he has
placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters
of Allahabad Bank v. All India Allahabad Bank Retired Employees
Assn. reported in (2010) 2 SCC 44 as well as by this Court in the matters
of Smt. Kamlabai & Another vs. Ghanshyam Shrotiya & Others
[Writ Petition No.7864 of 2014, decided on 08.09.2015]. Thus, it was
prayed that the present petition be allowed and while setting aside the
order Annexure P-1, learned Trial Court be directed to take the said
documents on record.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent while
supporting the impugned order had opposed the prayer so made by
counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs and prayed for dismissal of the
present petition.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
11. 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.
12. In the matter of Allahabad Bank v. All India Allahabad Bank
Retired Employees Assn. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as
under:
"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."
13. 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.
14. 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 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."
15. This Court in the matter of Smt. Kamlabai & Another vs.
Ghanshyam Shrotiya & Others (supra) 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 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."
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. This Court, in the light of aforesaid judgments, holds that the
present application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) 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 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.
19. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present petition is
allowed and disposed of.
(Milind Ramesh Phadke)
PAWA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH
Judge
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH
N pwn*
GWALIOR,
2.5.4.20=b864d1ab4ace2215bfcf3ab30
1c34d631287f1b1cdd90b4a49f265f02
d9d593f, postalCode=474001,
st=Madhya Pradesh,
serialNumber=61B9D129971D2EA4FD
KUMAR
4455ED49EA436EA65E26164BEEED89
153191C56E98CE21, cn=PAWAN
KUMAR
Date: 2025.04.30 17:11:18 +05'30'
