Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vinay Kumar vs Udit Agrawal on 16 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14708
1 MP-3493-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI
ON THE 16th OF JULY, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 3493 of 2025
VINAY KUMAR
Versus
UDIT AGRAWAL
Appearance:
Shri Mohan Lal Bansal - learned counsel for the petitioner.
ORDER
With the consent of petitioner, the matter is heard finally.
2. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has
been filed seeking the following reliefs:
" अत: माननीय यायालय से वन याचना है क ाथ गण क यािचका
वीकार कर परमादे स जार कर अिधन थ यायालय ारा आदे श 16
िनयम 6 व 7 सी0पी0सी0 के आवेदन पर पा रत आदे श अने र पी-1
िनर त कर स बंिधत रकॉड तलब करने क आ ा दान क जावे। "
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the vide impugned
order dated 24.6.2025, the application of petitioner under Order XVI Rule 6
and 7 of C.P.C. has been rejected by the trial Court on the basis that certified
copy of document is sufficient and it can be exhibited and therefore, the case
can be decided on the copy itself. There is no need for calling the original
document from the Sub Registrar Office qua partition deed dated 3.7.2018.
Since the partition deed is a private document, the certified copy of it cannot
be exhibited in evidence, and such objection shall be raised by the plaintiff;
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14708
2 MP-3493-2025
therefore, the original document is required to be called in evidence for
proving his document. He relied upon the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench
of this Court in the case of Raghuraj Singh v. Kedar Singh , 2012 (III)
MPWN 64.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
5. In the case of Raghuraj Singh (supra), the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court has held in paragraphs 10 and 11 as under:
10. In my considered opinion, the said judgment although was passed with
respect to Order 8 Rule 1 CPC but the same analogy can be applied/drawn for
interpreting the aforesaid principle applicable in this case also. It cannot be
forgotten that even Order 16 rule 2 and Order 16 rule 6 CPС are also part of
the procedure. These provisions also contain the word "shall" but non-
performance of a duty/conduct/activity within the time so prescribed does not
lead to forefeiture of the right. In other words, in absence of providing the
consequences of not doing the act within the same time or any penal action
thereupon, it will remain open for the Courts to grant further time to meet the
ends of justice. In other words, the basic purpose of such cases is to see
whether the delay in preferring the application is bona fide or is with a view to
delay the proceedings with oblique motive. If it is not that such intention, the
delay simplicitor cannot be a ground to deprive him from his right nor such
right will stand automatically extinguished after the time prescribed or the
event mentioned in the Statute. However, I make it clear that although those
provisions are open held to for be the directory Courts even when the word
"shall" is used, it will always application to examine whether the delay in filing
the said application is proper, justiciable and is not tented with oblique motive
etc.
11. In the facts and circumstances of this case, in my opinion, the Court below
has taken a hyper-technical view in rejecting the applications aforesaid. In the
opinion of this Court, the document dated 6.1.2005 was a crucial document and
petitioner have filed the applications aforesaid for justiciable reasons. The
applications are not preferred with any ulterior motive or to delay the
proceedings unnecessarily. Since production of said document/record is
necessary, the other reasons assigned by the Court below for rejecting the
applications cannot also be a ground for upholding the order impugned.
Consequently, the order impugned dated 6.7.2012 (Annexure P-7) is set aside.
Both the applications preferred by the petitioners- defendants are allowed. The
Court below shall proceed fromthe aforesaid stage.
6. Keeping in view the copy of the partition deed appended with this
petition, it is found that since the deed of partition dated 3.7.2018 is a private
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:14708
3 MP-3493-2025
document, it cannot be exhibited and proved without calling the original
record from the Sub Registrar's Office; therefore, the rejection of the
application on the ground that this deed and the appended Naksha could be
proved by the certified copy is erroneous, and the trial Court's order, in the
circumstances, cannot be upheld.
7. Consequently, the order dated 24.6.2025 passed by the learned Trial
Court in respect of the rejection of the application under Order XVI Rules 6
and 7 of C.P.C. is hereby set aside, and the said application is allowed.
8. The learned Trial Court is directed to call for the record in respect of
the registered partition deed dated 03.07.2018 from the Sub-Registrar's
Office, Gwalior, and thereafter proceed with the case in accordance with law.
C.C. as per rules.
(RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI)
JUDGE
Ahmad
