Sattar Din vs Rashid Mohammad And Others

Ajay Mohan Goel, J

By way of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged order dated 28.11.2019, passed by the Court

of learned Civil Judge, Court No. II, Amb, District Una, H.P. in Civil Suit No. 266 of 2020, titled as Bali Mohammad & others Vs. Rashid Mohammad

and others, vide which an application filed by the present petitioner, who is the plaintiff before the learned Trial Court under Order 7, Rule 14(3) of the

Code of Civil Procedure has been dismissed.

I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and also gone through the documents appended with the petition, including the impugned order.

It is not in dispute that the suit stood filed as far back as in the year 2010. It is further not in dispute that an application which was filed under Order

7, Rule 14 of the Civil Procedure Code to place on record certified copy of mutation No. 740, dated 22.02.2008, was filed in the year 2019. A perusal

of the application, which is on record, demonstrates that the only reason mentioned in the same as to why the said document could not earlier be

placed on record is that there was inadvertence on the part of the applicant. Learned Trial Court while rejecting the application so filed by the

petitioner observed that the suit was filed by the petitioner as far back as in the year 2010 challenging the mutation on the basis of an alleged fake Will

and the application under Order 7, Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed in the year 2019 and that too at the stage of arguments that

application was filed on the plea of inadvertence under Order 7, Rule 14 of the Code to place on record the documents in issue. Learned Trial Court

held that the word inadvertence does not gives a right to the applicant to file application under Order 7, Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure any

time. With these observations, learned Trial Court has dismissed the application.

In my considered view, there is no infirmity in the order which has been so passed by the learned Trial Court. The provisions of Order 7, Rule 14 of

the Civil Procedure Code cannot be permitted to be abused by a party to fill up the lacunaes in its case. Undoubtedly, Order 7, Rule 14 (3) of the Civil

Procedure Code provides that a document which has earlier not been placed on record, can be so placed on record with the permission of the Court,

however, in case, any such application is filed before the Court, then Court has to exercise the discretion vested upon it with utmost care. This is for

the reason that the Court is not only to perceive the application from the perspective of the applicant, but it has also to take into consideration the

prejudice which would be caused to the other party, in case, such application is allowed at a belated stage.

It goes without saying that the plaintiff is the master of his brief. The document on the strength of which plaintiff intends to approach the Court is

within the discretion of the plaintiff. In case, a plaintiff has not filed a particular document which may be germane to the issue raised in the suit, may

be on account of inadvertence on the part of the plaintiff, then, at a belated stage, such document cannot be permitted to be taken on record just to

enable a party to fill up the lacunae left in the case. The provisions of Order 7, Rule 14 of the Civil Procedure Code are not meant for this purpose.

Said provisions can come to the rescue of a party who bonafidely could not place a document earlier on record and approaches the Court for placing

on record such document within some reasonable time. As the case of the petitioner does not falls in the said category, learned Trial Court has rightly

rejected the application by holding that the same was filed at a belated stage, without there being any explanation as to why the same could not be

filed earlier. Accordingly as this Court does not finds any merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed, so also pending miscellaneous

application(s), if any.