S.R. Enterprises Partnership vs Vijay and others

This order will govern disposal of WP No. 1588/16 and 2414/17 since it is jointly submitted by counsel for the parties that both these writ

petitions arise out of the similar orders passed by the trial court in same suit between the same parties. Both these writ petitions are filed by

plaintiffs. In WP No. 1588/16 the order of trial court dated 2/2/2016 and in WP no. 2414/17 the order dated 2/3/17 in CS No. 32A/13 is under

challenge. By both these orders petitioner''s applications under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of CPC have been rejected.

Learned counsel for petitioners submits that trial court has rejected the petitioner''s application without properly appreciating the factual and legal

position and that the documents sought to be produced were subsequently obtained and they are necessary for just and proper disposal of the suit.

As against this learned counsel for respondents have opposed the application submitting that so far as the order dated 2/2/16 is concerned,

petitioners wanted to produce the documents relating to criminal case which are not relevant and so far as the order dated 2/3/17 is concerned, the

petitioners had produced the old documents, hence the same has rightly been rejected by the trial court.

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

The petitioners have filed the suit for permanent injunction for restraining the respondents from interfering in possession of petitioners. The plea

of petitioners in the plaint is that a part of the land of respondent no. 2 was lost in the road widening scheme, therefore, President of the respondent

no. 2 had malafidely shown the land of earlier owner to be land of the society and got its diversion done and on that basis the respondent society

had tried to interfere in petitioner''s possession. The petitioner''s application for filing the documents i.e. charge in criminal case framed against the

office bearer of the society has been rejected vide order dated 2/2/16 and another application seeking leave to file other documents has been

rejected vide order dated 2/3/2017.

It is not disputed by counsel for the parties that evidence has not yet commenced in the matter.

Supreme court in the matter of Chakreshwari Construction Private Limited Vs. Maohlarlal reported in (2017) 5 SCC 212 has held that the law

permits the parties to file additional evidence at any stage of the trial under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC including at the first or/and second appellate

stage under Order 41 Rule 27 with the leave of the court provided a case is made out to seek such indulgence.

In the matter of Kapil Kumar Sharma Vs. Lalit Kumar Sharma and another reported in (2013) 14 SCC 612 in a case where the cross

examination had not commenced, the Hon''ble Supreme court has set aside the order of the court below dismissing the application under Order 7

Rule 14 CPC by holding that there was no reason of debarring the applicant from filing additional document in support of his claim.

This court also in the matter of Mahavir Prasad Jain Vs. Shamboo Kuchabandiya reported in 2005(1) MPWN 177 has held that:

Having heard learned counsel and perusal of the record, it is seen that under Order 7 Rule 14(3) power is vested in the Court to grant relief to

receive in evidence any document which is not produced or filed by the plaintiff along with plaint. This power has to be exercised judicially for the

purpose if advancing the course, it is not to be used in such a manner so as to cause injustice to any of the parties. In the opinion of this Court the

learned Court below has not exercised its power after considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and merely on the ground

that the document as available when written statement was filed by the defendant and on the ground of delay, application has been rejected.

Immediately after issues were framed petitioner had filed application for taking document on record. The reason for not filing the same in the year

1966 along with plaint is also reasonably explained by the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner is that he could not produce the document

earlier and was required to file the same in view of the objections raised by the respondent in his written statement of the time of filing of the suit.

Counsel for respondents has placed reliance upon judgment of the Supreme court in the matter of Seth Ramdayal Jat Vs. Laxmi Prasad

reported in AIR 2009 SC 2463 but that is not a case where scope of Section 16(1) of CPC was in issue but was a matter arising out of final

adjudication of the suit. He has also placed reliance upon order of this court dated 8/7/15 passed in WP No. 9415/14 in the matter of Rupinder

Singh Anand Vs. Smt. Gajinder Pal Kaur Anand but in that case the main issue was filing of application for amendment in the plaint belatedly after

commencement of trial.

Under Order 14 Rule 3 CPC the additional documents can be permitted to be produced with the leave of the court. The provision is to be

utilized for advancing the course of justice and not otherwise. The trial court ought not to have considered the merits of the documents at this stage.

In both the applications petitioners had disclosed that they could obtain the copies of documents only in the year 2016 and same were filed

promptly in the Court. Even otherwise considering the stage of proceedings when the documents were filed no such delay had taken place.

That apart the respondents can always be suitably compensated in this regard by appropriate cost.

Hence I am of the opinion that trial court has committed patent illegality in rejecting the petitioner''s applications under Order 7 Rule 14 (3)

CPC. Hence IAs are allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs. 2000/- payable by petitioners to respondents on the next date of hearing before

the trial court. The signed order be placed in the record of WP No.1588/2016 and copy whereof be placed in the record of connected writ

petition.

Writ petitions are accordingly disposed off.