Shanti Lal Jain (Chawhan) vs Ganpat Lal And Ors

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 2/11/2019 passed by the trial court, whereby, the application filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC has been rejected.

A suit was filed by the petitioner for permanent injunction in the year 2005. During the course of petitioner's cross examination, the respondents filed an application under Order VIII Rule 1A CPC for permission to produce certain documents. The application was allowed on 21/8/2019 by the trial court. The petitioner, thereafter, filed an application on 5/9/2019 under Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC read with Section 151 CPC seeking permission to place on record certain documents with the submissions that as the documents produced by the respondents based on the permission granted by the trial court were incomplete, the petitioner plaintiff wanted to produce complete documents, which may be taken on record in the interest of justice.

The application was contested by the respondent defendants. The trial court by its order impugned dated 2/11/2019 referred to various steps taken by the parties for production of documents, examination, cross examination of various witnesses and, thereafter, came to the conclusion that if again fresh documents are permitted to be produced, the same would be an unending procedure and that no explanation has been indicated in the application for the delay in producing the documents and consequently rejected the application.

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently made submissions that the trial court was not justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner inasmuch as occasion to produce the documents arose only after the defendants were permitted to produce documents under Order VIII Rule 1A CPC and as the documents were incomplete, the petitioner was producing complete documents and, therefore, rejection of the application is not justified.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record.

A bare look at the application filed by the petitioner would reveal that a simple application was made that the defendants have produced incomplete documents and as to why the documents in question, if they were relevant, were not produced earlier, no explanation whatsoever has been indicated in the application and in a routine manner the prayer has been made for permission to produce the documents.

The suit is pending since 2005 and as per the provisions of Rule VII Order 14 CPC the plaintiff is required to produce all the documents along with the plaint and further documents can only be permitted to be produced with the permission of the court. The court is required to judge the overall status of the litigation and then accord permission.

As noticed, the trial court by indicating the nature of proceedings which have taken place in the matter while examining, cross examining and further examining by the parties, has come to the conclusion that an unending practice cannot be permitted and has rejected the application, no case for interference in the order impugned is made out. The utter mess created in the litigation on account of the indulgence granted by the court can be noticed from the following part of the impugned order:

"उभय पक्षों की ओर से दिये गये तर्कों के संबंध में यदि पत्रावली का अवलोकन किया जाये तो यह दर्शित होता है कि पूर्व में वादी पक्ष की साक्ष्य समाप्त हो चुकी थी एवं इसके पश्चात प्रतिवादी साक्ष्य में वादी अधिवक्ता की ओर से दस्तावेज दिखाकर प्रश्न पूछा जाना चाहा गया, जिस पर न्यायालय द्वारा दस्तावेज दिखाकर प्रश्न पूछे जाने की अनुमति दी गई थी एवं दौराने जिरह अधिवक्ता वादी द्वारा जो दस्तावेज प्रस्तुत किये गये उनकी हद तक खण्डन स्वरूप प्रतिवादी को वादी से जिरह की अनुमति एवं खण्डात्मक साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत करने की इजाजत दी गई, जिस पर प्रतिवादी की ओर से कुछ दस्तावेज प्रस्तुत कर उन्हें रेकर्ड पर लिये जाने की प्रार्थना की गई एवं इसके पश्चात वादी गवाह से जिरह भी प्रारम्भ की जा चुकी थी। उसके पश्चात वादी की ओर से पुनः नये दस्तावेज प्रस्तुत कर उन्हें रेकर्ड पर लिये जाने एवं इन दस्तावेजात हेतु प्रतिवादी को पुनः साक्ष्य हेतु बुलवाये जाने की अनुमति हेतु प्रार्थना पत्र प्रस्तुत किया गया है। चूंकि पूर्व में वादी की साक्ष्य समाप्त हो चुकी है एवं प्रतिवादी साक्ष्य में नये दस्तावेज प्रस्तुत करने के आधार पर उनके खण्डन हेतु वादी को पुनः साक्ष्य हेतु न्यायालय में बुलाया गया हे। इसके पश्चात वादी द्वारा पुनः नये दस्तावेज प्रस्तुत कर उन्हें रेकर्ड पर लिये जाने एवं इस संबंध मं प्रतिवादी से जिरह की अनुमति चाही गई है। चूंकि पूर्व में प्रतिवादी साक्ष्य में दस्तावेजात वादी की ओर से प्रस्तुत करने हेतु स्वीकृति दी गई थी व सीपीसी में दिये गये प्रावधान जिसके अन्तर्गत दौराने जिरह विपक्षी द्वारा कोई दस्तावेज दिखाकर प्रश्न पूछे जा सकते है के आधार पर अनुमति दी गई थी व अब जो अनुमति पूर्व में दी गई थी के खण्डन के अधिकार के तहत प्रतिवादी को वादी के गवाह से जिरह की अनुमति के आधार पर जिरह करवाई जा रही है व इस स्तर पर पुनः नये दस्तावेज प्रस्तुत करने की अनुमति दिया जाना सही नहीं है। चूंकि इस प्रकार यदि पुनः दस्तावेज प्रस्तुत करने की अनुमति किसी भी पक्षकारान को दी जाती है तो यह अनन्तिम प्रक्रिया हो जायेगी। साथ ही इस प्रकार की कोई भी प्रक्रिया सीपीसी या साक्ष्य अधिनियम में प्रावधानित नहीं है।"

The writ petition has no substance and the same is, therefore, dismissed.