Madhya Pradesh High Court
Fastrack Real Estate And Developers vs Chetnarayan Singh on 29 January, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4655
1 MP-227-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 29th OF JANUARY, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 227 of 2025
FASTRACK REAL ESTATE AND DEVELOPERS
Versus
CHETNARAYAN SINGH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Qasim Ali - Advocate for the petitioner.
ORDER
This Miscellaneous Petition is filed being aggrieved of the order dated
9/12/2024 passed by the learned XXIInd Civil Judge, Senior Division Bhopal
in RCS No. 17-A/2019 whereby the learned trial court had rejected an
application under Order VIII Rule 1A (3) C.P.C. and also one under Order
VI Rule 17 C.P.C. after recording evidence of both the plaintiff and the
defendant.
It is submitted that this is second round of litigation and in the earlier
round of litigation, the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 20th
May, 2024 passed in M.P. No. 5044/2023 when application under Order VIII
Rule 1A (3) and Order VI Rule 17 were dismissed by the trial court vide
order dated 4/07/2023 had permitted the defendant to move the applications
afresh along with the original documents because at that time, the
applications were dismissed on account of non-furnishing of original
documents.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4655
2 MP-227-2025
It is thus submitted that in terms of the liberty granted by the
coordinate Bench on 20th May, 2024, the application was filed by the
defendant on 26/07/2024 as contained in Annexure P-8 filed along with this
writ petition under Order VIII Rule 1 A (3) of C.P.C. Now, the said
applications have been rejected afresh.
Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the judgment of
the Supreme Court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs.
Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and another 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 729 in
support of the provisions contained in Order VI Rule 17 and also another
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Levaku Pedda Reddamma and
others Vs. Gottumukkala Venkata Subbamma and another 2022 LiveLaw
(SC) 533 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it is well settled that
the rules of procedure are hand-maid of justice, and therefore, even if there is
some delay, the trial court should have imposed some cost rather than to
decline the production of documents itself.
It is submitted that petitioner was earlier a partner in the firm and since
she lost her husband, she was not aware of the documents, and therefore,
these documents are sought to be filed now which is denied by the learned
trial court.
Shri Qasim Ali admits that husband of the petitioner namely Shri Raja
Dubey died on 25/11/2017. It is also admitted that petitioner Arti Dubey was
a partner in the firm at the relevant point of time and then it is submitted that
she was a sleeping partner. After death of her husband, she became
proprietor of the firm namely Fastrack Real Estate & Developers. Now, it is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4655
3 MP-227-2025
submitted that the transaction was of the year 2010 and at that point of time,
Arti Dubey was not associated with the firm.
Now, at this stage, he submits that when transaction was entered into,
petitioner was not aware of it and later on, on conclusion of plaintiff and
defendant's evidence, she got these documents from the police authorities.
When Shri Qasim Ali is asked to show from the record that these
documents were received by the petitioner through police authorities, he
places reliance on Japti Panchnama dated 11/06/2020, though it is not on
record but shows that it was made at Police Station - Kamla Nagar by one
Pankaj Vishwakarma Sub Inspector. It is mentioned in the Japti Panchnama
in relation to Crime No. 200/20 under Sections 420 and 406 of I.P.C. that
one Harish Pandey S/o Late K.P. Pandey claiming himself to be engaged in a
private job with Ms. Arti Dubey had given these documents for seizure to the
police in the police station.
There is another document addressed to the S.H.O. Police Station M.P.
Nagar signed by Arti Raja Dubey enclosing certain documents with it.
Thereafter, there is a partnership deed dealing with reconstitution of
partnership deed dated 11 th of April, 2012 wherein Ms. Arti Dubey is shown
as a second partner.
Thus, these documents are taken on record as have been handed over
by Shri Qasim Ali during the course of arguments.
Thus, it is evident that firstly Arti Raja Dubey was a partner of the firm
namely M/s Fastrack Real Estate & Developers since 2012. Thus, first
argument raised by Shri Qasim Ali that she had no knowledge about the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4655
4 MP-227-2025
transactions is not made out. Nowhere in the partnership deed, it is
mentioned that she is a sleeping partner.
In view of such partnership deed, submission made by Shri Qasim Ali
that she was a sleeping partner and was not aware of the business of the
partnership firm is not made out from the record.
Secondly, the suit was filed in the year 2018-19. The documents were
given by the employee of the petitioner to the police on his own volition at
Police Station on 11/06/2020. Thus, it is not the case of the petitioner that
original documents were seized by the police and she was not aware of that.
It is also not a case that these documents were not within her
knowledge because her own employee had given these documents to the
police as is evident from the property seizure memo.
Thus, it was the responsibility of the petitioner to move an appropriate
application at an appropriate time seeking production of these documents in
terms of the provisions contained in Order VIII Rule 1 A which cast a duty
on the defendant to produce the documents upon which relief is claimed or
relied upon by him.
If the defendant fails to give proper explanation, then leave of the
court cannot be made in a mechanical exercise without permitting any
discretion left in the courts. Therefore, when tested after evidence of the
plaintiff and the defendant is complete, merely to fulfil the lacunas and for
own mistake of the defendant/petitioner in not filing appropriate documents
which were already there in possession especially when the bank statements
sought to be filed are nothing but the bank statements of the petitioner's own
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:4655
5 MP-227-2025
accounts which were already within their knowledge, the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Levaku Pedda Reddamma (supra) will not be of much
assistance because there is another aspect of law that the proceedings should
not be allowed to be prolonged especially when no proper reason is shown to
produce the documents in time.
As discussed above and there is no proper justification and on the
contrary Annexure P-8 reveals that after passing of the orders of the
coordinate Bench on 20th May, 2024, this application was filed after more
than two months on 26/07/2024 which highlights the intention of the
petitioner to delay the proceedings rather than to permit the courts to do
complete justice to the parties.
When this court has held that these documents were not filed within a
proper time frame and there is no proper justification for the delay as
discussed above, the second application for amendment could not have been
allowed and, therefore, the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in
Sanjeev Builders Private Limited (supra) will also not be applicable.
Therefore, when impugned order is tested, it does not suffer from any
infirmity or procedural irregularity calling for interference in the supervisory
jurisdiction of this court.
Accordingly, the petition fails and is dismissed.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
vy
