Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 126 (JK)

Reyaz Ahmad Wani v. Rubeena & Anr.

2011-03-23

FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA

body2011
1. This revision has been preferred by the petitioner, challenging the order of the Trial Court dated 8th February, 2011, by which trial Court permitted the plaintiff-first respondent herein to present the original document of Nikahnama, which shall be made part of the file. 2. Brief facts which are required to be stated are, that the petitioner and the first respondent got married on 11 th May, 2003, in accordance with the tenets of Shariyat and Muslim Personal law, and that marriage was recorded in the presence of witnesses in Nikhanama on 11th May, 2003. It is also the case of the first respondent that the petitioner herein agreed to pay an amount of Rs. 8.33 Lacs, as Mehar to her, out of which only Rs. 11,000/- have been paid by the petitioner as Prompt Dower and the remaining amount of Rs. 8.22 lacs, were kept as deferred dower, and was agreed to be paid on the demand of the first respondent. It is further stated that immediately after the marriage, the petitioner started maltreating the first respon­dent and in the year 2004, she was thrown out of the matrimonial home, and since then she has been residing along with 2nd respondent her minor child in her parental house, as such, since the year 2004, she has not been paid any sort of maintenance. Further case of the first respondent herein is that her golden orna­ments which were worked out at Rs. 2.49 lacs, have also not been returned by the petitioner. 3. It is in that backdrop the plaintiff-first respondent herein is stated to have filed a petition before the Trial Court in terms of Order 33 Rule 1 C.P.C, for recovery of Mehar to the tune of Rs. 8.22 lacs, Golden Ornaments wroth Rs. 2.49 lacs, and past maintenance of Rs. 4.80 lacs, along with interest. 4. When the suit was ripe for trial, parties were directed to lead evidence and the plaintiffs-respondents were directed to lead such evidence in the first instance. 5. The plaintiff-first respondent filed an application before the learned District Judge, Anantnag, on 15.05.2010, seeking permission of the Court to place on record the original documents of Nikka Nama and Receipts/Vouchers/Bills with respect to the Golden Ornaments, under Order 11 Rule 14 C.P.C. 6. 5. The plaintiff-first respondent filed an application before the learned District Judge, Anantnag, on 15.05.2010, seeking permission of the Court to place on record the original documents of Nikka Nama and Receipts/Vouchers/Bills with respect to the Golden Ornaments, under Order 11 Rule 14 C.P.C. 6. In the application filed before, the trial Court, it was stated that, photostat copies of the Nikhanama and receipt/Bills/Vouchers of the Golden Ornaments have already form part of the record as annexure 'A' and 'B'. The reason mentioned in the application for not filing the original documents at the relevant point of time was that the original documents were in possession of the Maternal uncle of the first respondent, who in connection with his business was living out side the State, and he returned only on 20th April, 2010, and that the first respondent received the original documents, thereafter from her Maternal uncle. 7. The learned trial Judge while relying upon Order 11 Rule 14 of C.P.C apart from the reasons adduced by the plaintiff-first respondent herein, allowed her to present the original documents of Nikhanama and has made the same part of the suit-plaint. 8. Assailing the order of the learned Trial Court, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the learned trial Judge ought to have allowed the application of the plaintiff-first-respondent, after finding sufficient reasons as to why the original Nikhanama was not filed along with the plaint at the relevant point of time. He contended that the reasons assigned by the learned trial Judge while accepting the prayer of the first-respondent were not justified. He further contended that in the plaint filed by the first respondent, there was no averment made that original documents were in the possession of her maternal uncle who was not available and was out of State in connection with his business. 9. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 10. Perusal of the annexures filed along with the application, discloses that photocopy of the original Nikhanama and other documents were also filed by the first-respondent herein along with the plaint as annexures 'A' and 'B'. 9. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 10. Perusal of the annexures filed along with the application, discloses that photocopy of the original Nikhanama and other documents were also filed by the first-respondent herein along with the plaint as annexures 'A' and 'B'. The plea taken by the first respondent in the application before the Court below was that original documents of Nikahnama were in the possession of her maternal uncle, who in connection with his business was outside the State, that only on 20.04.2010 he came back and thereafter, she was able to collect those original documents and that was the reason for not filing the same along with the plaint. 11. When the above plea of the 1st respondent was considered, it cannot be held that the same was not justifiable ground for allowing the 1st respondent to file the original documents for the proper disposal of the case. In fact, Under Order 13 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the parties are required to produce all documentary evidence prior to the settlement of the issues, which had not already been filed in Court. However, under Order 13 Rule 2 of the Code, it is provided that the documents which were not produced, as provided under Order 13 Rule 1, can be allowed to be produced at any subsequent stage of the proceedings subject to the condition that good cause was shown to the satisfaction of the Court for the non production of thereof, and, that the Court records such reasons with which it was satisfied. Therefore, under Order 13 Rule 2 of the Code, the Trial Court has been invested with the powers to accept and receive the documents even after the framing of the issues and the only requirement was that the party concerned should have shown sufficient cause to the satisfaction of the Court for not producing it as stipulated in Order 13 Rule 1. 12. Keeping the above statutory prescriptions in mind, when we examined the case on hand and the order impugned is considered, I find that the trial court was convinced of the reasons adduced by the 1st respondent for her inability to produce the documents earlier. 12. Keeping the above statutory prescriptions in mind, when we examined the case on hand and the order impugned is considered, I find that the trial court was convinced of the reasons adduced by the 1st respondent for her inability to produce the documents earlier. It cannot be said that the acceptance of the reasons adduced by the 1st respondent, namely, that the original Nikah Nama and other documents were in the custody of her maternal uncle who was away from the State, were not genuine reasons. In fact, the said reasons were not questioned by the petitioner as either non-genuine or unacceptable one. The 1st respondent got married to the petitioner in the year 2003. It is quite apparent that being a bride there was every possibility of her valuable documents being left in the custody of a respectable and reliable elderly person and her statement, that her maternal uncle had the custody of the documents, cannot therefore, be rejected as a reason, not an acceptable one. Therefore, when the trial court had considered those reasons and has stated that it was convinced of the said reasons while allowing the 1st respondent to bring those documents on record, it is not for this court to state that the said reasoning of the trial court should be set aside for the simple reason that the trial court made a reference to Order 11 Rule 14, as yet another ground for allowing the application of the 1st respondent. When the reasoning of the trial court for accepting the docu­ments produced by the 1st respondent at a belated stage, which is fully covered by Order 13 Rule 2 of the Code, merely because a different provision was quoted by the trial court, I am not inclined to interfere with the said order, inasmuch, as there was substantive compliance of the statutory requirement by the court below while allowing the application of the 1st respondent to take the original documents on record. 14. For all the above stated reasons, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order impugned in this revision petition. The revision petition fails and same is dismissed. 15. No costs.