Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 251 (MP)

Mahavir Prasad Jain v. Shambhoo Kuchabandiya

2004-03-12

RAJENDRA MENON

body2004
JUDGMENT By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, challenge is made against an order dated 27.8.2003 passed by the learned Court rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) of CPC filed by the petitioner and refusing to take document on record. Petitioner filed suit in question seeking relief for permanent injunction against the respondents regarding land in question. It is the case of the petitioner that he is Bhumiswami of the land in possession. He has recorded Bhumiswami in the Khasra entry. It was further alleged that defendants No. 1 with an intention to take the land of the villagers is illegally interfering with the petitioner's right of possession. Written statement was filed by the respondents and objection was raised in the written statement that land in question cannot be transferred without permission of the competent authority and therefore the petitioner is not entitled to a decree claimed by him. Issues were framed on the basis of averments made by the 'parties and immediately thereafter, petitioner filed the aforesaid application on 27.3.2003 vide Annexure P-4 praying for taking on record certified copy of the permission granted by the Collector for transfer of the land. The said application has been rejected by the impugned order. It is submitted by Shri N.K. Jain, learned senior counsel, that there are two grounds mentioned in the order for rejecting the application: (1) no reason has been explained by the plaintiff for not filing document along with the plaint even though document is of the year 1966 and delay in filing document is not explained, and (2) it is not indicated in the document as to which land it pertains to and therefore the said document is for different land; on these grounds application is rejected. Shri Jain, learned counsel, submitted that in view of the provision of the Order 13 Rule 2 having been deleted from 1.7.2000 and after coming into force of the provision Order 7 Rule 14 (3), learned Court had power to grant permission and take document on record. However, refusal to take document amounts to illegality with regard to exercising power inasmuch as if the document is not permitted to be brought on record, it will cause serious prejudice to the petitioner. However, refusal to take document amounts to illegality with regard to exercising power inasmuch as if the document is not permitted to be brought on record, it will cause serious prejudice to the petitioner. It was submitted by Shri Jain, learned counsel, that it was only when the written statement was filed that he came to know about the objection raised with regard to want of permission for transfer of the land and therefore, it was filed under Order 7 Rule 14 (3). As far as the different particulars of the land as entered in the document is concerned, it was submitted by Shri Jain, learned counsel, that difference is because of the change in the Khasra entries between 1966 and at the time of filing of suit in the year 2002. Accordingly, it was submitted by Shri Jain that in the interest of justice that document should be taken on record for proper adjudication of the dispute. Refuting the aforesaid, Shri Kamal Jain, learned counsel appearing for respondents, argued that order passed by the Court below is just and reasonable and Court having exercised it in accordance with law and interference at this stage in a petition under Article 227 is not made out. Referring to the entry made in the revenue record as filed by the petitioner vide Annexure P-6, the averments made in the plaint and the particulars of the land as detailed in Annexure P-5 it was submitted by Shri Jain, learned counsel for the respondents, that particulars of the land in these documents are different from Annexure P-5 filed with the pending suit and therefore no permission can be granted to take the document on record. It was, therefore, submitted by Jain that no case for interference in the matter is made out. 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 of justice, it is not to be used in such a manner so as to cause injustice to any of the parties. This power has to be exercised judicially for the purpose if advancing the course of justice, 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. As far as the grounds for rejecting application on considering the fact that particulars of the land mentioned in the document and in the plaint are different, the same has to be considered after recording of the evidence. Accordingly, rejection of the document on the grounds mentioned in the order is clearly unsustainable. Considering the same, petition is allowed. The order impugned rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 14 (3), Annexure P-4, is quashed. The learned Court is directed to take documents on record and proceed to decide the suit in accordance with law. Needless to emphasise that respondents-defendant shall be at liberty to raise such legal objection as permissible under the law with regard to tenability of the documents and its admission in evidence. Accordingly, petition stands allowed and disposed of with no order as to cost.