Chandan Singh vs Deewan Singh

Sheel Nagu, J.—This petition under Article 227 assails interlocutory order dated 19.2.2008 passed in Civil Suit No. 8-A/2008 by Civil Judge Class II, Vidisha where by an application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC preferred by the plaintiff/petitioner herein for production of documents in support of the contentions made in the plaint, has been rejected.

Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC sought bringing on record relevant documents including the bank Pass Book the joint account in which the amount of compensation was deposited, the receipt in original, the mutation register and the map. The said application has been rejected by the trial court on the ground that no reason has been assigned by the plaintiff for not having mentioned the said documents in the list of documents annexed to the plaint when the plaint was filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the decision of single bench decision of this court in the case of Suresh Patel and another Vs. Antar Singh Patel and others, contends that since there was no prejudice cause to the other side in producing the said documents, the prayer for production ought not to have been rejected, especially when the trial was yet to begin.

Perusal of the above said decision in the case of Suresh Patel (supra) reflects that the same relates to the provision of Order 13 Rule 2 CPC which was repealed w.e.f. 1.7.2002 and from the same date Order 7 Rule 14 was replaced by a new one.

The provisions of Order 7 Rule 14(3) vests discretion upon the trial court to bring such additional documents on record which could not be produced or mentioned in the list at the time of filing of the plaint. The only restriction imposed for production of the documents under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC is that the same cannot be done without leave of the court. Thus vide discretion is vested in the court which thus obviously has to be exercised on the principle of fair play, equity and justice. The object behind Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC is to enable the parties to rectify their mistake or inability to produce the documents at a later point of time in a suit in support of the plaint which ought to have been produced along with the plaint. Thus the provision is remedial in nature which deserves liberal interpretation to enable the object of said provision to be achieved. The relevant extract of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Allahabad Bank and Another Vs. All India Allahabad Bank Retired Emps. Assn., is profitably reproduced herein below:-

We shall proceed to examine the point urged by the learned counsel for the appellant. Remedial statutes, in contradistinction to penal statutes, are known as welfare, beneficent or social justice oriented legislations. Such welfare statutes always receive a liberal construction. They are required to be so construed so as to secure the relief contemplated by the statute. It is well settled and needs no restatement at our hand that labour and welfare legislation have to be broadly and liberally construed having due regard to the directive principles of State policy. The act with which we are concerned for the present is undoubtedly one such welfare oriented legislation meant to confer certain benefits upon the employees working in various establishments in the country.

This legal position has been reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. The Hooghly Mills Company Ltd. and Others,

The denial of prayer for production of documents is justified only when the court can objectively sense oblique motive of the plaintiff to delay the trial. The court can very well impose appropriate cost on erring party instead of outright denial. If this course is adopted then the trial court will have better material to discover the truth which is the ultimate object to be achieved in every trial.

The trial court while rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC has neither recorded that any prejudice shall visit the defendants if the document sought to be produced by the plaintiff are taken on record, nor any cogent findings have been recorded that the suit is being unnecessarily delayed to the extent that denial of application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) is unavoidable.

The trial in question was at the stage where recording of plaintiff''s evidence was yet to commence. Thus, at this early stage there was no justified reason for the court to deny the application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC.

In view of the above, this court is of the considered view that while passing the impugned order, the court below has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC in a proper and justified manner.

Accordingly, impugned order dated 19.2.2008 passed in 8-A/2008 passed by Civil Judge Class II, Vidisha is set aside to the extent it rejects the application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC. The trial court shall proceed by deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and proceed with the trial.