Tirath Sonkar vs Mangilal Taowri And Ors

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J

By the impugned order, the plaintiff's/ petitioner's application under Order 18 Rule 17 under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code (in short 'the CPC') for exhibiting the additional documents on record has been rejected by the learned trial Court finding no merit.

Mr. Kotecha, learned counsel for the petitioner/ plaintiff would submit that the trial Court is absolutely unjustified in rejecting the application as that application was filed only to exhibit the additional documents which has been taken on record by order dated 30.05.2019 in the light of decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Rati vs. Mange Ram(D) Thr. LRs. And others AIR 2016 Supreme Court 1343.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/ plaintiff, considered his submissions made and went through the records with utmost circumspection.

The plaintiff/ petitioner herein filed the suit for declaration of title of permanent injunction, partition and possession on 15.09.2008, in which both the parties adduced their evidence and concluded their evidence on 16.05.2019. Thereafter, the plaintiff preferred an application under Order 7 Rule 14 of the CPC for taking document on record and the case was again fixed for final hearing on 30.05.2008. On that date, the application under Order 7 Rule 14 of the CPC was allowed and thereafter when the case was fixed for final hearing on 03.06.2008, the plaintiff referred an application under Order 18 Rule 17 of the CPC for exhibiting the additional documents taken on record which has been rejected by the impugned order.

3The learned trial Court has relied upon the provisions contained in Order 18 Rule 17 of the CPC as well as taken into consideration that the case is 11 years' old and the application was filed after the closure of evidence of both the parties at belated stage while rejecting the application.

In my considered opinion, the trial Court is absolutely justified in rejecting the application as it is pending since 15.09.2008 and no valid reason have been assigned in application under Order 18 Rule 17 of the CPC and that would amount to re-opening the matter which has already been concluded.

In view of the above finding, I do not find any illegality and perversity in the present writ petition. Accordingly, it deserves to be and, is hereby dismissed.