Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vijaypal Singh Kushwah vs Smt Mamta Agarwal on 28 March, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7349
1 MP-2624-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
ON THE 28th OF MARCH, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 2624 of 2024
VIJAYPAL SINGH KUSHWAH
Versus
SMT MAMTA AGARWAL AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Somyadeep Dwivedi - learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Gaurav Mishra- learned counsel for respondent No.6 .
ORDER
1. Heard on IA No.6319/2024 which is an application for dispensing
with service of notice of this petition to respondents no.1 & 2.
2. It is gathered from the order dated 19.02.2024 passed by learned
trial Court that defendants no.1 & 2 were ex-parte before the trial Court.
3. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the petitioner is
exempted from service of notice of this petition to respondents no.1 & 2.
4. Heard.
5. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging order dated
19/02/2024 passed by the 10th Additional District Judge, Gwalior in MJC
No.115/2015 wherein his application under Order VII Rule 14(3) of CPC
and another application under Order XVI Rule 1 & 6 read with Section 151
of CPC have been rejected by the Court.
6. Pointing out the order in relation to the application under Order 7
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7349
2 MP-2624-2024
Rule 14 (3) of CPC, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that his
application has been rejected on the ground that the document viz. copy of
sale deed which is an e-certified copy is not admissible as evidence for want
of certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.
7. He relies upon the judgment passed by this Court in the case of
Punit Agrawal Vs. Murarilal and Ors. reported in 2020 (3) MPLJ 368
wherein this Court has held that at the time of consideration of the
application under Order VII Rule 14 of CPC, the admissibility of document
cannot be gone into. Para 13 of the said judgment being relevant is
reproduced below:-
"In the present case, the Court below has not rejected the
application under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC on the ground that the
same has been filed with oblique motive to delay the trial. The
application has been rejected only on the ground of admissibility
of documents. In the considered opinion of this Court, the
admissibility of documents can be considered at the time when
those documents are tendered in evidence."
8. In view of the aforesaid legal position, the reason assigned by the
learned trial Court is not sustainable. Accordingly, order in relation to
application under Order VII Rule 14 (3) of CPC is set-aside. The document
filed by the applicant is directed to be taken on record. The admissibility of
the document shall be looked into by the trial Court at appropriate stage of
evidence.
9. In view of the order passed in relation to order VII Rule 14 (3) of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:7349
3 MP-2624-2024
CPC, application filed by the applicant under Order XVI Rule 1& 6 of CPC
becomes inconsequential, therefore, order passed by the trial Court in respect
of the said application need not be considered.
10. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of.
(ASHISH SHROTI)
JUDGE
rahul
