Mandir Sen Samaj Trust - Mandir Narayani Mata vs The Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) and Others

Narendra Kumar Jain, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

This writ petition, on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioner, is directed against the impugned order dated 19th November, 2003, passed by the trial court whereby two applications dated 26th July, 2002 and 13th August, 2002 under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC, have been dismissed. The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for possession, mesne-profit and permanent injunction against the defendant-respondents in the year 1994 and when the case was going on for plaintiff''s evidence, the plaintiff- petitioner filed the aforesaid two applications, which have been dismissed on the ground that the documents produced do not appear to be genuine one and no explanation has been given for the delay in filing the same.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial court committed an illegality in rejecting their applications on the aforesaid grounds. He contended that so far as veracity or genuineness of the documents is concerned, the same will be examined by the trial court at the time of final disposal of the case and; so far as delay in producing the documents is concerned, the same cannot the sole ground for rejecting the applications and the delay of proceedings could have been compensated by awarding a reasonable amount of costs and, according to him, the reasonable amount of costs would have been Rs. 5,000/ (Rupees five thousand).

The learned Counsel for the respondents defended the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

I have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for both the parties in the light of reasons assigned by the court below.

The Hon''ble Supreme Court in Nawab Singh Vs. Inderjit Kaur, while considering the case relating to Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, held as under: The provisions of Order 7 Rule 14 CPC are relating to procedural law and they are required to be interpreted liberally. The veracity or genuineness of the documents will be considered at a proper stage and mere filing of documents cannot be said that the documents are proved. So far as delay of proceedings is concerned, it is plaintiff''s suit which is going to be delayed in case the present applications are allowed. Moreover, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has agreed that he will pay a sum of Rs. 5000/-as costs to the respondents.

After considering the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that delay could not have been the sole ground for rejecting the applications; and, genuineness of the documents will be considered at the time of final hearing of the case. In these circumstances, the trial court committed an illegality in rejecting the applications. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the trial court cannot be allowed to be sustained.

Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 19th November, 2003, passed by the trial court is set aside. Both the applications filed by the petitioner are allowed on payment of costs of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only), which will be paid within a period of one month from today, failing which both the applications will be deemed to have been dismissed and the documents, filed therewith, will not be taken on the record.

It will be open for the defendant- respondents to file documents in rebuttal of the documents filed by the plaintiff along-with the applications.

So far as this writ petition is concerned, the costs is made easy.