Sanjay Kumar And Others vs Mohan Lal And Others

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J

CMP(M) No.566/2021 & CMP No. 9195/ 2021

Heard. For the reasons stated therein, both the applications are allowed. The applicant-respondent No. 1 is permitted to participate in the proceedings.

Applications stand disposed of.

CMPMO No. 205 of 2018

Civil suit was filed by respondent No. 1 against the petitioner and proforma respondent. Proforma respondent was proceeded ex-parte in the civil suit

as defendant No. 1. The suit reached the stage of recording of evidence. Statement of respondent No. 1/plaintiff was recorded. She was cross-

examined also. On 28.2.2018, learned counsel for respondent No. 1/plaintiff tendered three documents Ex. P1, Ex. P2 and Ex. P3 in evidence.

Separate statement of learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff was also recorded in this behalf. Case of petitioner/defendant No. 1 in the instant

petition is that order dated 28.2.2018 is not in conformity with the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure.

Since in the present petition, the grievance of the petitioner is in relation to the order dated 28.2.2018, therefore, this order is reproduced hereinafter:

“28.2.18: Pr: Sh. A.S. Chopra, Adv. For plaff.

Sh. Babu Ram, Adv. For def. No. 1.

Deft. No. 1 already exparte.

Cross examination of PW Priya Sood recorded. Ld. Csl. For platff. has tender documents Ex. P1, P2 and P3 in evidence, vide separate

statement recorded. Time prayed for R/Pws. Allowed. Let R Pws be summoned for 16/5/18 on taking steps within 3 days dasti service. Cost to

be paid on next date.â€​

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that three documents, tendered in evidence by the learned counsel for respondent No. 1/plaintiff, were not

included in the list of the documents filed on behalf of the plaintiff under order 7 Rule 14(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure. No application was moved

by the plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC for placing these documents on record. Therefore, order dated 28.2.2018 recording tendering of three

documents in evidence, has not been passed in accordance with law.

Whereas, learned counsel for respondent No. 1/plaintiff submitted that the petitioner/defendant No. 2 had not objected to the tendering of documents

before the learned trial Court at the appropriate time. Therefore, this petition assailing the order dated 28.2.2018, is not maintainable. Learned counsel

also referred to the provisions of Order 13 Rules 3 and 4 CPC in support of his submissions that the Court may at any stage of the suit reject any

document which it considers irrelevant or otherwise inadmissible after recording grounds of such rejection.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case file.

The very perusal of order dated 28.2.2018 (extracted above) makes it clear that after recording the evidence of respondent No.1/plaintiff, three

documents were tendered in evidence by her learned counsel. A separate statement in this regard was recorded of her learned counsel. The

impugned order does not reflect that petitioner/defendant No. 2 had objected to this tendering. It is only in this petition that the petitioner/defendant No.

2 has objected to the tendering of documents in evidence. To a query of the court as to whether any application under the relevant provisions was

moved by the petitioner/defendant No. 2 before the learned trial Court regarding non-recording of her objection to the tendering of documents in

evidence or in respect of order dated 28.2.2018, the answer was in negative. In view of the admitted factual position, present petition is not

maintainable at this stage and is accordingly dismissed. In case defendant No. 2 is aggrieved by the tendering of documents in evidence, as allowed in

terms of order dated 28.2.2018, passed by the learned trial Court, it is for her to take appropriate recourse as available in accordance with law before

the learned court below.

With the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed of accordingly, so also the pending application(s), if any.