Smt. Usha Saxena vs Sundar Singh Bhadouriya and Others

Sujoy Paul, J.—By invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution the petitioner/plaintiff has challenged the order dated 12.07.2013 (Annexure P/1) passed in Civil Suit No. 9A/2013 passed by Xth Additional District Judge, Gwalior. It is further prayed that the applications preferred under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) r/w section 151 C.P.C. preferred by the petitioner be allowed. The petitioner filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. During the pendency of the suit the petitioner preferred an application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) C.P.C. and prayed that the sale deed dated 22.06.1996 be taken on record. It is contended that the said deed was not available to the plaintiff at the time filing of the suit. Copy of the said sale deed is received later on and therefore, the said document be taken on record. Another application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) C.P.C. (Annexure P/6) is filed praying that the layout plan is received by the petitioner under the Right to information Act only on 22.06.2013 and therefore, she promptly filed it. The said layout plan is necessary for proper adjudication of the matter and therefore, same be taken on record.

The defendants opposed the said prayer before the Court below.

By the impugned order, the Court below rejected both the applications. It is held by the Court below that the original sale deed is already on record. There is no dispute regarding the origin and title of the disputed plot and, therefore, plaintiff is not required to show the title of her predecessor. If document is taken on record, it would delay the proceedings. Second application is rejected on the ground that the defendants has not claimed any right or title on the disputed plot and, therefore, the said document is not necessary.

Shri S.S. Kushwaha, learned counsel for the petitioner by taking this Court to the averments of the plaint, written statements and those applications which were rejected by the impugned order submits that the Court below has erred in rejecting the said applications. The findings are perverse and the said document is necessary to separate wheat from chaff.

Per Contra, Shri S.K. Jain supported the order and submits that no interference is warranted by this Court.

The petitioner in para 2 of the plaint stated that the plot in question was earlier purchased by Sudhir Gaud from Laxman Das. The petitioner purchased the said plot from Sudhir Gaud by registered sale deed dated 02.09.2009. The defendants in written statement in para 2 and 3 have denied these allegations in specific. Thus, the finding of the Court below that there is no dispute between the parties regarding title or origin of the petitioners claimed is factually incorrect and runs contrary to the pleadings and record. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, the Court below has rejected the application erroneously and the application should have been allowed.

The layout plan was also submitted by the petitioner to make the position of the plot clear. In the opinion of this Court, the said layout plan is necessary and relevant document. In paragraph 3 of the written statement, the defendant has disputed the size of the plot. Interestingly the existence of the plot itself is disputed. Petitioner by layout plan can make out the case and prove the pleadings. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, this document is relevant and Court below has erred in rejecting the same. More so, when the plaintiff has received this document under the RTI only on 22.06.2013 and filed it promptly on 01.07.2013, the Court below has erred in rejecting this application as well. If documents are taken on record, no prejudice will be caused to the other side.

On the basis of aforesaid analysis, I deem it proper to set aside the order dated 12.07.2013 (Annexure P/1). Resultantly, the said order is set aside. The applications preferred by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 14(3) C.P.C. (Annexure P/4 and Annexure P/6) are allowed. The Court below is directed to proceed from that stage in accordance with law. Petition is allowed. No Costs.