Smti Shrial Syiem & Ors. vs . Klestina Syiem & Anr.
2022 Latest Caselaw 257 Meg

 Serial No. 01
 Supplementary List
                    HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
                          AT SHILLONG

CRP No. 37 of 2020
                                          Date of Decision: 31.05.2022

Smti Shrial Syiem & Ors.         Vs.           Klestina Syiem & Anr.

Coram:
              Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, Judge


Appearance:
For the Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s) :   Mr. V.G.K. Kynta, Sr. Adv. with
                                       Ms. C. Nongkhlaw, Adv.

For the Respondent(s)              : Mr. R.S. Myrthong, Adv.

Mr. F. Shangpliang, Adv.

i)    Whether approved for reporting in                  Yes/No
      Law journals etc:

ii)   Whether approved for publication                   Yes/No
      in press:



                     JUDGMENT AND ORDER

1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India read with clause 6 of the High Court of Meghalaya (Jurisdiction

over District Council Courts) Order, 2014 has been preferred against the

Judgment dated 02.09.2020 passed by the learned Judge, District Council

Court, Khasi Hills in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2017, upholding the

order dated 05.12.2016 passed by the learned Trial Court in Title Suit

No. 8 of 2009.

2. The brief facts are that the learned Trial Court by the order

dated 05.12.2016, had allowed and admitted 20 photo copies of

documents filed by the respondents/plaintiffs at the stage of framing of

issues which the petitioner/defendant contends is contrary to Order 7

Rule 14 of the CPC. On appeal before the Court of the Judge, District

Council Court, the same was upheld by Judgment dated 02.09.2020. The

petitioner thereby being aggrieved, is before this Court, and has put a

case that the said documents filed by the plaintiffs are neither part of the

Plaint, nor any reference made to them in the pleadings and that the

impugned order allowing the introduction of these documents has the

effect of changing the entire course and nature of the Suit without even

the Plaint being amended.

3. The short point that is to be decided in the instant revision is

whether the Courts below were correct in allowing additional documents

to be filed which are not part of the Plaint at the stage of framing of

issues, notwithstanding the fact that before the District Council Courts,

the CPC is not applied in letter, but in spirit and as such, in the facts and

circumstances of the case, whether the learned Courts below were

justified in not adhering to the provisions of Order 7 Rule 14 (3) of the

CPC which has laid down as follows:-

"14. Production of document on which plaintiff sues or relies.-

(1) ...........

(2) ...........

(3) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the plaintiff when the plaint is presented, or to be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint but is not produced or entered accordingly, shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit."

4. Mr. V.G.K. Kynta, learned Senior counsel assisted by Ms.

C. Nongkhlaw, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the said

documents sought to be introduced, were without the leave of the Court,

nor with any amendment to the Plaint and pleadings, and are not even

remotely mentioned in the Plaint in any manner. It is further submitted

that the said documents are not the originals of the documents that have

been filed along with the Plaint or written statement, as provided under

Order 13 Rule 1 CPC. It is then contended by the learned Senior counsel

that irrespective of the stage of the proceeding of a Suit, no document

can be produced other than in the manner given under Order 7 Rule 14

CPC and that by the impugned orders, the Courts below have adopted a

procedure unknown to law and though only the spirit of the CPC is

applicable, the said orders have caused grave prejudice to the

petitioners/defendants and has occasioned severe miscarriage of justice.

He lastly submits that the spirit applied should be such, to ensure fairness

and justice; and it is of paramount importance that these judicial

institutions adopt a standard procedure which will not prejudice any

party in the conduct of such proceedings. Learned Senior counsel on the

point of submission of additional documents, has cited the case of

Chakreshwari Construction Private Limited v. Manohar Lal reported

in (2017) 5 SCC 212.

5. Mr. R.S. Myrthong, learned counsel for the respondents in

reply submits that the documents had been filed prior to the stage of

evidence, while the issues are being framed and as such no prejudice can

be said to have been caused to warrant any interference by this Court.

Learned counsel submits that Rule 47 of The United Khasi-Jaintia Hills

Autonomous District (Administration of Justice) Rules, 1953 has clearly

stipulated that the District Council Courts shall be guided by the spirit

and not bound by the letter of the Code of Civil Procedure in all matters

not covered by customary laws. To buttress his submissions, the learned

counsel has relied upon the case of Westerly Dkhar and ors. vs Sehekaya

Lyngdoh reported in (2015) 4 SCC 292, wherein he submits the Supreme

Court has noted that application of the CPC in the District Council Courts

as given in Rule 47 of The United Khasi-Jaintia Hills Autonomous

District (Administration of Justice) Rules, 1953, was to be in spirit only.

He lastly submits that in this context therefore, the orders passed by the

Courts below can neither be said to be illegal or to suffer from any

procedural defect as these orders have been passed by the application of

the judicial mind of the Courts as to the applicability of only the spirit of

the CPC.

6. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, it is firstly

to be noted that it is a fact that District Council Courts in their duty and

functions of dispensation of justice and adjudication of such matters, are

bound not by the letter, but by the spirit of the CPC. A perusal of the

orders impugned herein, however reflect that firstly, the order

05.12.2016 passed by the trial Court, while noting the objections of the

petitioner as to the requirements of Order 7 Rule 14, has only on the point

that the Suit having not proceeded for evidence and that issues were yet

to be framed, allowed the list of documents to be admitted and to form

part of the record. The appellate order of the Judge, District Council

Court dated 02.09.2020, while upholding the order of the Trial Court

observed that Order 7 Rule 14 (3) CPC had been complied with by the

respondent/plaintiff, and that no prejudice would be caused to the

petitioner/defendant if the documents were allowed, as the stage of

evidence was yet to commence and that the defendant still had ample

opportunity to question and challenge the said documents.

7. In the normal consideration of such matters, by the

application of the CPC, the law permits parties to file additional evidence

at any stage of the trial, by an application under Order 7 Rule 14(3), with

the leave of the Court. In the instant case, the documents that were sought

to be introduced by the plaintiffs was admittedly at the time of filing of

suggested issues. On objections being filed thereto, on the ground that

the list of documents did not form a part of the Plaint or pleadings, was

without leave of the Court, or as per the provision of Order 13 Rule 1

CPC, the Trial Court only on the ground that the Suit was yet to proceed

for evidence, allowed the introduction of the documents, which was

thereafter upheld by the appellate Court.

8. Order 7 Rule 14 (3) of the CPC, provides that a document

which ought to be produced in Court by the plaintiff when the plaint is

presented, or to be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint

but is not produced or entered accordingly, shall not, without the leave

of the Court be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the

suit. The scope of Order 7 Rule 14 (3) is very clear as to the duties of the

plaintiff and the requirement that must be fulfilled in such circumstances.

What has been occasioned in the instant case is that without the

documents being part of the plaint or pleadings or referred to therein, and

without leave of the Court, the documents were introduced, accepted and

admitted for evidence, only on the ground that the proceedings were yet

to enter the stage of evidence. It is also to be noted that while allowing

the said documents, no consideration was given by the Courts below, to

important factors and aspects which would have had a crucial bearing on

the matter, such as 'whether the said documents' :-

     (i)     would change the nature of the suit

     (ii)    would introduce a fresh cause of action

(iii) were relevant for deciding the questions/issues raised and

(iv) whether it would cause prejudice to the other side.

9. Both the Courts below did not examine relevant factors and

did not go into the meat of the matter, in considering whether the

documents should be allowed to be introduced. In fact, the appellate

Court found that Order 7 Rule 14 (3) had been complied with, only on

the point that the lower Court had allowed the introduction of the said

documents. Though as contended by the respondent/plaintiff that only

the spirit of the CPC is applicable, nowhere in the impugned orders has

this aspect as to how the procedure laid down in CPC should have been

followed in spirit, been deliberated at all. It is correct that the law makers

while enacting Rule 47 of The United Khasi-Jaintia Hills Autonomous

District (Administration of Justice) Rules, 1953 had done so, as not to

burden the tribal litigants with the technicalities of procedural law, but

this provision was not meant to be used, or taken shelter of, to do away

totally with adherence to the fundamental principles of judicial

procedure and allow injustices to be caused.

10. In allowing the said introduction of new documents, the

Courts below should have considered the larger perspective of prejudice

not being caused to either party, as detailed in the earlier part of this

judgment as to whether the nature, cause and course of the suit would be

changed, and should have examined the matter in its totality keeping the

spirit of the CPC in mind. Even if the procedure is not to be bound by the

letter of the CPC, the procedure adopted should ensure certainty and

definiteness and should not lead to a situation that would handicap, or

put the other party to a disadvantage, or result in the violation of the

Principles of Natural Justice.

11. In view of these circumstances, this revision application is

allowed, and the impugned orders dated 02.09.2020 and 05.12.2016 are

set aside and quashed. The judgment placed by the respondents i.e.,

Westerly Dkhar and ors. vs Sehekaya Lyngdoh(supra) being on a

different footing as it deals with the interpretation of the procedure

prescribed in Rule 28 of The United Khasi-Jaintia Hills Autonomous

District (Administration of Justice) Rules, 1953, vis-a-vis the provisions

of the CPC, will not be applicable in the instant case.

12. However, looking into the matter and in the interest of

justice, it is provided that the respondent/plaintiff, shall be allowed to put

in appropriate applications seeking introduction of the said documents

and the same shall be disposed of in accordance with law keeping in mind

the observations and directions contained in this judgment, especially on

the application of the spirit of the CPC to ensure the observance of the

fundamental principles of judicial procedure.

13. Before parting with the records, it is important to add that

the findings and observations rendered in this judgment are on the basis

of the facts and circumstances of this case itself, and the manner of

application of the Spirit of the CPC should be based on the peculiar facts

of each case and should not lead to injustice being caused to parties.

14. The matter accordingly stands disposed of with no order as

to costs.

15. Lower Court case records be transmitted back immediately.

JUDGE

Meghalaya 31.05.2022 "V. Lyndem-PS"