Baksha Ram and Others vs State of Rajasthan

Sangeet Lodha, J.

This petition is directed against order dt. 11.4.12 of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ratangarh in Civil Original Case No. 5/09, whereby an application preferred by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 14(3) of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (''CPC'') stands rejected. The petitioners filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction regarding a "Katani Rasta" from Daudsar to Dheerasar in Tehsil-Ratangar District- Churu, with the leave of the Court in terms of provisions of Section 91(1)(b) of CPC. The petitioner produced certain documents before the Court. The respondents raised an objection in terms that the document sought to be produced could be taken on record only by way of an application under Order VII Rule 14(3) of CPC. The objection was sustained by the trial Court and accordingly, vide order dt. 21.4.10, the documents were refused to be taken on record. In these circumstances, the petitioner preferred an application under Order VII Rule 14(3), seeking leave of the Court to produce the documents. The application was contested by the respondents by filing a reply thereto. After due consideration, the application stands rejected by the trial Court by the order impugned. Hence, this petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Court below has rejected the application on the basis of order dt. 21.04.2010, without appreciating the fact that the documents earlier produced were not taken on record solely on the ground that no leave was sought in terms of provisions of Order VII Rule 14(3) of CPC. Learned counsel submitted that the application under Order VII Rule 14(3) was filed by the petitioner then and there and this fact is even recorded in the order dt. 21.04.2010 passed by the Court below. Learned counsel submitted that the Court below has committed serious error in not considering the application preferred on merits.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the leave sought for producing the documents, having been refused by the Court below vide order dt. 21.04.2010, the fresh application preferred could not have been entertained and therefore, the order impugned passed does not suffer from any error, warranting interference by this Court.

I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record.

A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the application preferred by the petitioner stands rejected by the Court below solely on the ground that the leave sought to produce the documents, having been refused vide order dt. 21.04.2010, taking into consideration the circumstances of the case, it is not appropriate to grant the permission to produce the documents at this stage.

Indisputably, vide order dt. 21.04.2010, the petitioner prayer for taking the documents on record, was refused by the Court below while upholding the objection raised on behalf of the respondents in terms that the documents produced are neither original nor their copies were placed on record alongwith the plaint and therefore, without permission being sought under Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC, the document cannot be permitted to be taken on record. It is also a matter of record that the application under Order VII Rule 14(3) was preferred by the petitioner then and there and thereafter the respondents have filed a reply thereto. In these circumstances, the trial Court was under an obligation to consider the application on merits and decide whether the leave prayed for, to produce the documents should be granted or not, in terms of provisions of Order VII Rule 14(3) of CPC. Thus, apparently the order impugned passed by the Court below suffers from jurisdictional error and deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The order impugned dt. 11.4.12 is set aside. The trial Court is directed to consider and decide the application preferred by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 14(3) of CPC on merits in accordance with law.

No order as to costs.