Smt. Angoori Devi vs Rajendra Sharma and others

Hon''ble Shri Justice Sujoy Paul

In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 27.01.2012, whereby his application preferred under Order 8 Rule 1A (3) read with 151 CPC is rejected. Shri K.S. Tomar, learned senior counsel has confined his relief against the impugned order only to the extent Annexure P-5 is rejected by the Court below. The petitioner filed an application Annexure P-5 under Order 8 Rule 1A (3) read with 151 CPC with a request to allow the said application and take the documents on record, which were produced along with the said application. The Court below has rejected the said application by assigning the reason that in the application Annexure P-5, the petitioner has not assigned/shown the reason for placing those documents on record. In other words, the application of the petitioner is silent about the relevance of the documents. The Court below has held that in absence of showing the reason as to why those documents are necessary for lawful adjudication of the matter, application cannot be allowed. This finding of the Court below has come in view of the specific defence taken by the defendant that the whole attempt of the petitioner is to delay the proceeding and to buy time. The defendant has further stated that the documents preferred along with the application Annexure P-5 have no relation with the disputed land and, therefore, it cannot be taken on record.

Shri V.K. Bhardwaj, learned senior counsel supported the order passed by the Court below.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.

The Gauhati High Court (Agartala Bench) in its recent judgment in C.R.P. No. 104/2010 has held as under:-

For obtaining leave of the Court, the defendant is required to justify by disclosing the reasons as to why the documents could not be filed together with the written statement and as to how the document is relevant for the purpose of just decision of the case. Therefore, the Court while considering the application of the defendant for grant of leave to file the document, has to see whether sufficient ground has been made out by the applicant for not filing the document earlier. This restriction has been put by the statute to avoid delay in adjudication of the dispute as because a party cannot keep on filing irrelevant document which are not helpful in adjudication of a dispute.

(Emphasis Supplied)

The Order 8 Rule 1A (3) read with 151 CPC is an enabling provision. The Court in its discretion may permit the parties to file certain documents and said documents may be taken on record. However, the condition precedent for taking those documents on record is showing the relevance of those documents with the point involved in the matter. In other words, the Court below is bound to take only those documents on record which have at least a thread relation with the point involved in the matter. If the document in question has some relevance and are necessary for lawful adjudication of the matter, Courts are bound to take those documents on record. However, for this purpose the primarily burden is on the shoulder of the applicant, who submits such application. It is obligatory for the applicant to assign reasons and relevance of those documents, which are sought to be taken on record. In absence of thereof, no fault can be found in the order passed by the Court below. The scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is well defined. In absence of any jurisdictional error, perversity, palpable procedural irregularity, no interference is warranted under Article 227 proceedings. This Court is not sitting as an Appellate Court to interfere in the interlocutory orders in a routine manner or on a drop of hat. Another view is possible is not ground for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Thus, in view of the judgment of Gauhati High Court (supra) and above analysis I find no reason to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. Petition is bereft of merits and substance and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.