Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Usha Kiran Saxena vs Amit Maheshwari on 8 January, 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. 5657 of 2023
SMT. USHA KIRAN SAXENA
Versus
AMIT MAHESHWARI AND OTHERS
______________________________________________________________
Appearance:
Shri N K Gupta, learned Senior counsel with Shri Vineet
Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Deepak Khot, learned counsel for the respondent no.1
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Reserved on 29.11.2024
Delivered on 8/01/2025
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
(1) By way of instant petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India the petitioner/defendant no.1 herein is
challenging the order dated 18.8.2023 passed by 5 th Additional
District Judge, Gwalior in Civil Suit No.113A/2015, whereby an
application under section 151 of CPC filed by the respondent
no.1/plaintiff at the time of his evidence with a prayer to permit
him to tender a map of the disputed property and to attach the
same with the plaint and another application under Order 7 Rule
14 (3) of CPC for taking on record two sale deeds dated
7.4.1986 and 8.4.1986, were allowed without considering the
factum of long delay in preferring those applications and without
explaining cogent reasons muchless any plausible reasons, as
the suit was instituted on 11.1.2013 and though it was brought to
the notice of the respondent no.1-plaintiff on 7.12.2017 about
non-filing of the map, it was stated to be appended along with
the plaint but not filed and so far as the production of documents
were concerned since there was mention of sale deeds in the
plaint, but they were not filed along with it even though they
were in knowledge and possession of the respondent no.1-
plaintiff, thus alleging the impugned order to be perverse and
perse illegal, the present petition has been filed.
2. Learned Senior Counsel had vehemently argued that the
impugned order has been passed without considering the factum
of long delay of more than one decade in filing both the
applications by the respondent no.1/plaintiff, without explaining
the reasons muchless any plausible reason of the said delay. Thus,
alleging the impugned order have been passed illegally,
quashment of the said order is sought.
3. Learned Senior Counsel, so far as allowing of the
application under section 151 of CPC, has argued that the
respondent no.1/plaintiff though had mentioned in his pliant that
the map of the suit property has been appended along with the
plaint and forms part of it, but no map was in actuality attached
with the plaint and even when this fact was brought to the
knowledge of the respondent no.1-plaintiff at the time of framing
of issues, he did not choose to file the said map though the
counsel appearing for him had taken time, therefore, at this
belated stage filing of the map would amount of filling up
lacuna, and therefore, the said application should have been
rejected on the ground of delay and respondent no.1-plaintiff
should not have been permitted to file said map.
4. Learned Senior counsel with regard to allowing of the
application filed under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) of CPC for taking
two sale deeds on record had argued that the sale deeds which
the respondent no.1/plaintiff is trying to bring on record were very
well in existence prior to filing of the suit and were within his
knowledge, as the existence of those sale deeds have been
mentioned in the plaint itself and without any sufficient
explanation the application was moved and allowed. It was
further submitted that even though the respondent no.1/plaintiff
had failed to show the reason as to why when the documents
were in his possession long back, were not produced before the
Court earlier, within a reasonable time the learned Trial Court
had allowed the application which, infact was to be rejected due
to sufficiency of the reasons. Thus, it was submitted that the
impugned order in this regard also suffers from perversity and
illegality, thus, is liable to be set aside.
5. To bolster his submissions reliance were placed in the
matter of Ashok Chaudhary Vs. Gwalior Dairy Ltd. and
others, 2018 (2) MPLJ 301, Devendra Kumar Nayak and
another Vs. Sudha Nayak (Smt.) and others ILR [2015] MP
3176, Ram Singh Rawat Vs. State of M.P. Passed in
M.P.No.699/2021 dated 23.2.2021 and Babulal Namdeo Vs.
Gulab Singh Sarna, passed in M.P. 923/2019 dated 20.12.2021.
6. Per contra learned counsel for the respondents Shri Deepak
Khot while supporting the impugned order submitted that so far
as allowing of the application under section 151 of CPC is
concerned, proper explanation was afforded for non-submission
of the map along with the plaint as inadvertently it was left out
and since it was necessary for proper adjudication of the suit it
was filed at a later stage. It was further argued that from the map
it could very well be ascertained as to what was the actual
situation on the spot and since due to mistake the said map
could not be produced at the time of filing of the suit and later-on
though time was taken for its filing, but could not be produced,
as it was required for proper adjudication learned Trial Court has
rightly allowed the application after considering the explanation
forwarded.
7. So far as regard being had to the order allowing the
application under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) of CPC learned counsel for
the respondent no.1-plaintiff argued that its true that the plaint
finds mention of the sale deeds which were proposed to be taken
on record and the said sale deeds were filed with delay, does not
render application to be thrown out on the ground of delay as the
said sale deeds were related to the suit property and were
necessary for proper adjudication and as the learned Trial Court
can go into the relevancy of the said documents at the stage of
deciding the application and can examine the same and if those
documents are found to be relevant depriving a party to the suit
not to file those documents on the ground of delay will lead to
denial of justice, coupled with the fact that rules of procedure are
hand-maid of justice, and therefore, even if there is some delay,
the Trial Court on imposition of some costs can allow those
documents to be taken on record, rather than to decline the
production of those documents itself. To bolster his submission
he has placed reliance in the matter of Marwari Relief Society
Vs. Amulya Kumar Singh, 2019 (15) SCC 383 and Levaku
Pedda Reddamma and others Vs. Gottumukkala Venkata
Subbamma and another, passed in Civil Appeal No.4096/2022
decided on 17.5.2022. On the strength of the aforesaid
arguments it was submitted that the present petition being devoid
of any merit and therefore, is liable to be dismissed.
8. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. A bare perusal of the provisions of Order 7 Rule 14 (3) of
CPC shows that the document which is not presented along with
the plaint by the plaintiffs, shall not be accepted at the later stage
without leave of this Court. The Coordinate Bench of this Court
in the matter of Smt. Kamla Bai vs. Ghanshyam Shrotiya
(W.P.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. O.7 R. 14 (3)
C.P.C. 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"
10. The Apex Court in the case of Rani Kusum Vs. Smt.
Kanchan Devi and another, Appeal (Civil) 5066 of 2005 has
held as under:-
"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 (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.
(AIR 1998 SC 1827) Processual 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."
11. Whenever documents are sought to be adduced as a
corroborative evidence in support of the claim made in the plaint
rigor of the rules can be said to be relaxed. Order 7 Rule 14 (3)
C.P.C. enables the Court to receive the documents which are not
filed along with the plaint in genuine cases and obviously the
reason behind this is to avoid delay and when the documents
are necessary for adjudication of the matter in dispute then the
application can be allowed even if it is belatedly filed.
12. The reason behind this is that as the procedural law should
not ordinarily be construed as mandatory rather it 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.
The Apex Court in catena of judgments had observed that
procedural law is not to be a tyrant but a servant, not an
obstruction but an aid to justice and procedural prescriptions are
the handmaid and not the mistress, a lubricant, not a resistant in
the administration of justice. Thus, the application under Order 7
Rule 14 (3) of CPC filed for taking two sale deeds on record
which prima facie appears to be correct with the subject matter.
Thus, seems to have rightly allowed by the learned Trial Court.
13. Likewise this Court finds that in the plaint there was
specific mention of map appended along with the plaint, but as it
has been submitted by counsel that inadvertently it got left to be
filed, cannot in any way is said to be prejudicial to the interest
of petitioner-defendant as the said map was filed by the
respondent no.1/plaintiff before starting of his evidence and the
petitioner/defendant would get ample opportunity for cross-
examining the respondent no.1-plaintiff over the said document.
Thus, when sufficient averments are found in the plaint in respect
of the said map sought to be produced, this Court finds that the
learned Trial Court has rightly allowed the said application and
had rightly directed the respondent no.1-plaintiff to produce the
said map on record.
14. This Court does not find any perversity or illegality in the
impugned order. The petition being sans merit and is hereby
dismissed.
15. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner
is based on different facts, and therefore, the same are not
applicable in the present case.
(Milind Ramesh Phadke)
Judge
8/1/2025
Aspr/-
