Charminar Jointing Pvt. Ltd. vs Jagriti Plastics Ltd.

V.B. Gupta, J.—Present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by petitioner challenging order dated 15th May, 2010 passed by Additional District Judge, Rohini, Delhi.

Vide impugned order, application under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC (for short as ''Code'') filed by respondent seeking leave to produce letter dated 18th February, 2008 was allowed.

Respondent herein, has filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 4,09,551.12/with future and pendente lite interest against the petitioner. The petitioner is contesting the suit. During the course of trial, respondent filed an application under Order 7 Rule 14 of the Code stating that petitioner confirmed the credit balance of Rs. 3,38,472/- as on 18th February, 2008 payable by him to the respondent, vide letter dated 18th February, 2008. The said letter could not be filed along with the suit as the same was not traceable due to the shifting of record. Since, petitioner in its written statement has disputed its liability, therefore the said letter goes to the root of the case and respondent may be permitted to exhibit that letter in evidence.

In reply to this application filed by petitioner, it is stated that the alleged letter dated 18th February, 2008 was never issued or signed by the petitioner and as such the same cannot be allowed to be placed on record.

It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that impugned order is liable to be set aside since, none of the ingredients of Order 7 Rule 14 of the Code, have been fulfilled by the respondent. No sufficient cause for seeking leave to produce the alleged letter dated 18th February, 2008 has been mentioned in the application.

It is further contended that letter dated 18th February, 2008 is a forged and fabricated document and as such the same cannot be allowed to be placed on the record. In support, learned Counsel cited a decision of this Court, Gold Rock World Trade Ltd. v. Veejay Lakshmi Engineering Works Ltd. 2008 (1) CCC 704 (Delhi).

Present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is well settled that jurisdiction of this Court under this Article is limited.

In Waryam Singh and Another Vs. Amarnath and Another, the court observed;

This power of superintendence conferred by Article 227 is, as pointed out by Harries, C.J., in - Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd. V. Sukumar Mukherjee AIR 1951 CM 1280 : 2010 Cal 193 (SB) (B), to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the Subordinate Courts within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors.

In light of principles laid down in the above decision, it is to be seen as to whether present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against impugned order is maintainable or not.

Respondent in its plaint has clearly mentioned that as per statement of account of the petitioner, a sum of Rs. 3,38,472/- is due against petitioner as on 18th February, 2008, which petitioner is liable to pay along with interest.

As per photocopy of letter dated 18th February, 2008 (page 43 of the paper book), prima facie, it is clear that as on, 18th February, 2008 petitioner has confirmed that a sum of Rs. 3,38,472/- is due to the respondent. Only plea of petitioner is that, this letter dated 18th February, 2008 was never issued and signed by him.

Letter dated 18th February, 2008 is on the pad of petitioner''s firm having its correct address. So, prima facie, it cannot be said that even pad of petitioner''s firm has been forged by the respondent.

Order 7 Rule 14 of the Code read as under:

Production of document on which plaintiff sues or relies- (1) Where a plaintiff sues upon a document or relies upon document in his possession or power in support of his claim, he shall enter such documents in a list, and shall produce it in Court when the plaint is presented by him and shall, at the same time deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the plaint.

(2) Where any such document is not in the possession or power of the plaintiff, he shall, where possible, state in whose possession or power it is.

(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) Nothing in this rule shall apply to document produced for the cross-examination of the plaintiff''s witnesses, or, handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.]

As per above provisions, the document can be received with the leave of the Court, which the Court shall grant in genuine cases.

Trial court in impugned order has held:

The only ground for non production of document in question is that the same was not traceable on account of shifting of the office and the present application has been moved immediately after the said document has been traced in the office.

Law is well settled that the documents which are necessary to decide the dispute between the parties should be allowed to be produced as the proof and admissibility of such documents which are filed at a later stage shall be subjected to the order of the court. So, this application is allowed.

Since, respondent has clearly mentioned in the plaint that a sum of Rs. 3,38,472/- is due from the petitioner as per statement of petitioner''s account, the mere fact that letter dated 18th February, 2008 was not filed along with the plaint would not make much difference to the case of the parties.Letter dated 18th February, 2008 goes to the root of the case and for just decision of the case it is necessary that respondent be allowed to prove this letter in accordance with the provisions of law. The explanation given by respondent that he could not produce this letter earlier since the same was not traceable is certainly bona fide. As such there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. Case of Gold Rock (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case.

Present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India having no legal merits and the same has been filed just to delay the proceedings pending before the trial court is hereby dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000/(Rupees Twenty thousand only).

Petitioner is directed to deposit the costs by way of cross cheque with Registrar General of this Court, within four weeks from today.

CM No. 18260/2010

Dismissed.

List for compliance on 23rd November, 2010.