Sumita Devi, W/o Late Vishnu Rai vs Baneshwar Rai, S/o Late Ratan Rai

Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J

Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

The plaintiffs are the petitioners who filed the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession with respect to the schedule property and are aggrieved by the order dated 20.05.2025 passed in Title Suit No. 22/2014 by which learned Trial Court has refused to admit into evidence the documents produced on behalf of the plaintiffs at the stage of argument.

List of following documents was filed by the plaintiff:

i. Certified copy of Purcha of Gantzer Survey Settlement of J.B. No. 6 of Mouza Nunadangal.

ii. Certified copy of order-sheet in Cr. Misc. Case No. 878 of 2009.

iii. Certified copy of petition of Sunita Devi and others Cr. Misc. Case No. 878 of 2009.

iv. Certified copy of show cause of second party-defendant in Cr. Misc. Case No. 878 of 2009.

v. Certified copy of police report on the basis of which the proceeding under Section 144 of Cr.P.C. was initiated being Cr. Misc. Case No. 878 of 2009.

It is argued that these documents are relevant to rebut the pleading and evidence led on behalf of the defendants regarding the parentage of Matku Rai from whom the defendant’s claim title. It is argued that learned Trial Court has dismissed the petition only on the ground of delay in filing the petition. It is contended that nowhere it has been stated in the impugned order that the concerned documents were not relevant, but the same were rejected on the ground that the trial was at its penultimate stage.

It is submitted that the claim of title in the present case is based on the inheritance from the recorded tenant, Ludho Rai. The plaintiff(s) claims themselves to be the descendants of his brother, whereas, the defendants claim themselves to be the son of one Matkun Rai who is claimed to be the son of said Ludho Rai. In order to throw light on the genealogy of the parties, these documents are relevant for consideration.

It is argued by learned counsel for the Opp. Parties that the order dated 13.11.2009 by which copy of the petition seeks to adduce into evidence has been set aside vide order dated 18.08.2010 in Cr. Revision No.13 of 2010, therefore, it does not hold force. Further, there was no admission in the said show cause to the order on which the Opp. Parties are not the author, but the Court concerned.

It is mainly argued on behalf of Opp. Parties that since the said order on which the petitioners seek to adduce into evidence has been set aside, therefore, it is non est in the eyes of law along with the show cause which had been filed on behalf of the Opp. Parties in the said case.

Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both the sides, it is apparent that the learned Trial Court has not assigned any reason except for the fact that the case was at the stage of argument for denying the admissibility of the evidence. There is mandate of law under Order VII Rule 14 (I) CPC where the plaintiff must produce any document they are suing upon or relying on as evidence in their possession when they file the plaint. This rule requires the plaintiff to create a list of documents and submit them to the court along with a copy of the plaint before the Court.

However, sub-Rule 3 of Rule 14 Order 7 CPC provides that such a document which has not been produced in the Court by the plaintiff(s) when the plaint is presented can be filed with the leave of the Court.

The settled legal position is that if a document is relevant for adjudicating the lis, it ought not to be excluded merely because the trial is at its penultimate stage. In the present suit, the dispute concerns rival claims of title based on inheritance; therefore, the genealogy of the parties is a fact-in-issue to be established through appropriate documents. The documents sought to be introduced by the petitioners are relevant for this purpose.

It is well-established that the admissibility of a document and its probative value are distinct matters. The power under Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC is intended to prevent miscarriage of justice and to facilitate determination of the real controversy, provided no intentional prejudice is caused to the opposite party.

In the present case, this Court is of the view that the learned Trial Court erred in declining to admit these public documents, which are directly relevant to the issues framed and whose production, being in the form of certified copies, would not have occasioned any delay.

Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The instant CMP is allowed. Pending I.A(s), if any, stands disposed of.

The Trial Court shall admit these documents upon their due proof. The defendants shall be afforded an opportunity to rebut the same by leading evidence, for which adequate time shall be granted.