Bharat Kumar Sharma vs Hidayatullah

U.C. Maheshwari, J.—He is heard on the question of admission. The petitioner/applicant the resister of the impugned decree, has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by the order dated 8.10.2013 (Annexure-P-4) passed by Ist Civil Judge Class-II Katni, in MJC No. 16/11, whereby his application filed under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of CPC for taking the annexed documents on record, has been dismissed.

Having heard the counsel, keeping in view the arguments advanced, I have carefully gone through the papers placed on the record along with the impugned order.

It is apparent that the petitioner/applicant has filed the aforesaid MJC under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC., to resist the decree passed in between some other persons the decree holder and the judgment debtor and at the stage of filing such application, the annexed documents were not filed before the executing Court. The same have been filed during the course of recording the evidence of applicant.

On perusing the Index of the annexed documents, the part of Annexure-P-2, it is apparent that the document No. 1 & 2, are the certified copies of the proceedings which were drawn up by the Naib Tashildar while dealing with the stated revenue case and the documents No. 3 & 4 are the proceedings drawn up by the Civil Court while dealing with the civil case as stated in it and the document No. 5 is a copy of Khasara Panchsala issued by the revenue official. So in such premises, all such documents come under the purview of public document defined u/s 74 and 76 of the Evidence Act as the proceedings of any judicial Court or quasi judicial Court are deemed to be public document and the Khasara Panchsala issued by the revenue authorities or the official under the official seal on the basis of record kept by the authorities, is also a public document and to prove and produce the same, no further or additional evidence is required. Every judicial Court or the quasi judicial Court are bound to take the same on record and to decide the case on merits, even if the same are not exhibited. So in such premises, it is held that the trial Court has committed grave error in not taking the certified copy of such documents on record. Consequently, the impugned order deserves to be and is hereby set aside without issuing any notice to the other side and the trial Court is directed to take into consideration such documents while deciding the matter on merits, but it is specifically observed that on the basis of these documents, the petitioner shall not be entitled to get any further adjournment either to reexamine the examined witnesses or to call the other witnesses to prove these documents.

The petition is allowed as indicated above.

It is also observed that if the respondents/decree holders are aggrieved by this order or any part of it, then they may approach this Court with appropriate proceedings/petition permissible under the law for redressal of their dispute.

Apart the aforesaid, the executing Court/trial Court is directed to conclude the trial of the impugned original application strictly in compliance of order dated 22.7.2013 passed by this Court in writ petition No. 4159/2013. Certified copy as per rules.