[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gaurav Khandelwal vs Gwalior Young Mens Club (Gymc) Sanatan ... on 16 January, 2026
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2158
1 MP-2116-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 16th OF JANUARY, 2026
MISC. PETITION No. 2116 of 2022
GAURAV KHANDELWAL
Versus
GWALIOR YOUNG MENS CLUB (GYMC) SANATAN DHARM
MANDIR ROAD NEAR ACHLESHWAR MANDIR LASHKAR
GWALIOR THR. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Nikhil Rai- learned Counsel for petitioner- defendant No. 1.
Shri Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi- learned Counsel for respondent No.1-
plaintiff.
ORDER
The present Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by the petitioner,
Defendant No.1 in the original suit, under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, challenging the order dated 19.04.2022 passed by the XV Additional
District Judge, Gwalior in RCS No. 8-A of 2016 whereby the petitioner's
application under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), seeking
permission to present and refer to a copy of the tender quotation dated
28.10.2003 during cross-examination of its witness, has been rejected.
2. A few facts giving rise to present petition are that the respondent
No.1, Plaintiff, filed a suit seeking a declaration that the lease deed dated
18.05.2007 is null and void, along with relief of permanent injunction.
Petitioner filed a written statement with a counterclaim seeking specific
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2158
2 MP-2116-2022
performance of lease deed and agreement. Based on the pleadings, the
learned trial Court framed issues and fixed the case for evidence. Plaintiff's
evidence has been completed, and case was fixed for defendant's evidence.
During chief examination of petitioner's witness, Madan Mohan
Khandelwal, plaintiff's counsel questioned the witness regarding lease deed,
specifically about the absence of a provision for payment of rent. The
witness responded that rent provisions are mentioned in Clause 15 of lease
deed and Clause 25 of the tender quotation dated 28.10.2003. The original
tender quotation is in the possession of plaintiff. Petitioner sought to present
a copy of the tender quotation to respond to this question, but plaintiff's
counsel objected. Consequently, petitioner filed an application under Section
151 CPC seeking permission to present the document. The trial Court
rejected this application, holding that a similar application was previously
filed by the petitioner and was dismissed on 04.11.2018 due to the inordinate
delay in seeking the document, which had been in the plaintiff's possession
since the proceedings began in 2008.
3. It is contended on behalf of petitioner that the order impugned dated
19.04.2022 is illegal and contrary to law. It was argued that the learned trial
Court failed to consider the real controversy, namely, that plaintiff
deliberately withheld the tender quotation, preventing the petitioner's witness
from responding fully during cross-examination. The tender quotation is an
important document for the adjudication of matter and the prior rejection of
application should not bar its consideration now. Hence, prayed for setting
aside the impugned order by allowing the application filed under Section 151
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2158
3 MP-2116-2022
of CPC.
4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 opposed
the contentions raised by the petitioner and supported the impugned order
dated 19.04.2022 passed by the XV Additional District Judge, Gwalior. It
was submitted that the petitioner had previously filed a similar application
for the production of the tender quotation dated 28.10.2003, which was
dismissed by the trial Court on account of inordinate delay. The present
application under Section 151 CPC is a mere attempt by the petitioner to
prolong the proceedings unnecessarily, despite the fact that the original
tender quotation is in the possession of the plaintiff. The trial Court correctly
observed that the petitioner has failed to provide any sufficient justification
for seeking to present the document at this belated stage, more than a decade
after the initiation of the proceedings. Hence, the impugned order rejecting
the petitioner's application is both lawful and appropriate. Learned Counsel
for the respondent further placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in S. Ramchandra Rao v. Nagabhushana Rao and Others,
AIR 2022 SC 5312, wherein it has been held as follows:-
''Section 11 of the CPC, which deals with res judicata, does not
exhaustively define the doctrine of res judicata but merely
recognizes it statutorily. The doctrine of res judicata is founded on
equity, justice, and good conscience, and is designed to serve
larger public interest. A judicial decision, once rendered by a
competent court, must be accepted as correct, and no party should
be vexed twice on the same issue. The doctrine applies not only to
separate subsequent proceedings but also to subsequent stages of
the same proceedings. A binding decision cannot be lightly
ignored, and even an erroneous decision remains binding on the
parties concerning the same issue. The principle of per incuriam
applies to precedents, not to the doctrine of res judicata, which has
an independent basis in public policy and judicial discipline.''
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2158
4 MP-2116-2022
Relying on the above, it was submitted that the petitioner cannot be
allowed to repeatedly seek to introduce the same document or circumvent
prior orders of the Court under the guise of Section 151 CPC, especially
when the document is in the plaintiff's possession. Permitting such belated
applications would frustrate the trial process, cause undue delay, and
prejudice the rights of the respondent. In view of the above, learned counsel
for the respondent prayed that the Miscellaneous Petition filed by the
petitioner be dismissed.
5. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the impugned order.
6. On perusal of the record, it is clear that original tender quotation is
in the plaintiff's possession and petitioner has had ample opportunity to seek
its production at an earlier stage. The suit has been pending since 2008, and
plaintiff's evidence was completed on 02.12.2021. Allowing the petitioner to
introduce the same document at this stage, particularly after a previous
similar application was dismissed, would unnecessarily delay the
proceedings and prejudice the respondent.
7. It is a settled principle of law that Section 151 CPC cannot be
invoked to circumvent procedural requirements or to allow a party to present
documents belatedly without sufficient justification. The petitioner has failed
to provide any new reason or explanation to justify the repeated delay.
Moreover, the trial Court had rightly noted that cross-examination of a
witness can be conducted by showing the document, but the petitioner did
not comply with procedural requirements, and prior applications for the same
purpose were dismissed. The trial Court has ensured that the case proceeds
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2158
5 MP-2116-2022
expeditiously. The petitioner's witness has been directed to appear for
remaining cross-examination, and plaintiff was also directed to be present for
cross-examination. Therefore, the trial Court balances the need for justice
with the requirement to avoid unnecessary delays in a case pending for more
than ten years.
8. In view of the foregoing discussion, the Miscellaneous Petition
filed by the petitioner is without merit and is dismissed. The impugned order
dated 19.04.2022 passed by XV Additional District Judge, Gwalior,
rejecting petitioner's application under Section 151 CPC, is hereby
upheld. No order as to costs.
(HIRDESH)
JUDGE
MKB
