Jagdish Singh vs Chote

Sheel Nagu, J.—This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails the interlocutory order dated 30/08/2013 passed in Case No. 60-A/2012/Civil Suit by 2nd Civil Judge Class II Karaira whereby an application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC preferred by the plaintiff seeking production of documents has been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner is heard on the question of admission

Perusal of the application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC preferred by the plaintiff indicates that request was made to present the certified copy of Khasra from the year 1997-98 to 2001-02 and certified copy of Khatoni entries of the year of 2003 which could not be produced earlier at the time of filing of the plaint as the said documents were received by the petitioner only on 12.8.2013.

Interestingly, apart from the reason that the said document sought to be presented under Order 7 Rule 14 which was received by the petitioner on 12.8.2013, no further explanation has been provided by the plaintiff as to why they could not be presented at the time of filing of suit and in what circumstances they came to the knowledge of the plaintiff on 12.8.2013. Moreover, the trial Court has also found that these documents were not related to the dispute involved as they are in the name of the wife of Daulat Singh who had already expired as per the averment in the plaint.

The trial Court has also observed that trial is at concluding stage where only final arguments need to be heard.

The power vested in the Court under Order 7 Rule 14(3) is an exception to the general rule of presenting of relevant documents alongwith plaint prescribed under Order 7 Rule 14(1). Being an exception to the general Rule, Clause (3) needs to be interpreted in strict manner casting heavy burden upon the plaintiff to satisfy the Court about the reasonable cause of not being able to present the documents earlier. It is only when this reasonable cause is shown, the leave of the Court as contemplated under Clause 3 of Order 7 Rule 14 can be granted and not otherwise.

Perusal of the impugned order of the trial Court and the circumstances attending the case make it clear that the plaintiff failed to discharge the burden to explain reasonable cause as to why the documents sought to be now presented could not be presented earlier with the plaint.

Accordingly, no jurisdictional error or illegality is found in the order of the trial Court which is accordingly upheld. Resultantly, this petition stands rejected sans cost.