Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1667 (RAJ)

Shyam Singh v. Civil (J. D. ), Hanumangarh

2014-10-13

SANGEET LODHA

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition is directed against order dated 20.5.14, passed by the learned Civil Judge(J.D.), Hanumangarh in civil suit No.181/12, whereby an application preferred by the petitioner-plaintiff under Order 7, Rule 14 to produce a document on record, has been rejected. 2. The relevant facts in nutshell are that the petitioner plaintiff filed a suit for declaration against the respondent in relation to a registered gift deed dated 5.11.09 executed by the respondent No. 3 in favour of the respondent No. 2, who is grand son of respondent No. 3 and son of respondent No. 4, to be illegal and void qua his rights. The petitioner-plaintiff also sought perpetual injunction against the respondent No. 2 to the effect that on the basis of the entries of the land in question made in record of rights in his name on the basis of the gift deed 5.11.09 may not be transferred or alienated. The petitioner claimed the disputed property to be ancestral property in the hands of Bhagirath, the respondent No. 3 herein and accordingly, contended that the same could not have been gifted by Bhagirath in favour of Bhupendra Singh, the respondent No. 2 herein. 3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the issues and the matter is posted for plaintiff evidence. 4. At this stage, the petitioner preferred an application under Order 7, Rule 14 for taking a document i.e. a photo state copy of partition deed on record claiming that the original of the said document is in possession of the respondent No. 2 and 3. 5. After due consideration, the application has been rejected by the court below by the order impugned. Hence, this petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the court below has seriously erred in refusing to take the document on record on the ground that it is not original document. Learned counsel submitted that the question of admissibility or inadmissibility of a document was not required to be considered by the court below while deciding the application preferred under Order 7, Rule 14 (3) CPC. Learned counsel submitted that the question of admissibility or inadmissibility of a document was not required to be considered by the court below while deciding the application preferred under Order 7, Rule 14 (3) CPC. Learned counsel submitted that though the court has observed that it will be open for the petitioner to take the appropriate steps in accordance with law for summoning the original document said to be in possession of defendant No. 2 and 3 but then, the rejection of the application by the court below as aforesaid, shall come in the way of the petitioner and therefore, the order impugned deserves to be set aside. 7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. 8. As per provisions of Order 7, Rule 14 (3), a document which ought to have been produced in the court by the plaintiff when the plaint is presented or to be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint but, it is not produced or entered accordingly, shall not be without the leave of the court, be received in evidence on his behalf, at the hearing of the suit. 9. It is true that the rules of procedures are hand maiden of justice and the cause of justice cannot be permitted to be defeated on account of failure to observe the procedure laid down strictly but then, the provisions incorporated by the legislature in its wisdom requiring filing of the documents at the appropriate stage, has been incorporated to avoid unnecessary delay in adjudication and for expeditious disposal of the lis between the parties. Therefore, the party to the suit who wants to produce the documents at the belated stage must satisfy the court that the document sought to be produced could not be produced at the appropriate stage on account of the fact that the same were not in his possession or he had no knowledge about the existence of the same. That apart, he must satisfy the court as to the relevancy of the documents sought to be produced at the belated stage for complete and effective adjudication of the dispute between the parties. That apart, he must satisfy the court as to the relevancy of the documents sought to be produced at the belated stage for complete and effective adjudication of the dispute between the parties. Suffice it to say that the plaintiff cannot claim filing of the document at the belated stage without furnishing the satisfactory explanation regarding the non production of the document at the appropriate stage. 10. Indisputably, the document sought to be produced by the petitioner does not find mention in the list of documents produced on behalf of the petitioner before the court below. According to the petitioner, the original of the document alleged to be a family partition is in possession of the defendant No. 2 and 3, however, no efforts were made by the petitioner for summoning the original document. It is to be noticed that the court below has specifically observed that it is open for the petitioner to take the appropriate steps in accordance with law for summoning the original document. In this view of the matter, the apprehension of the petitioner that on account of rejection of the application under Order 7, Rule 14 , the petitioner shall stand precluded from making an appropriate application before the court below for summoning the original document is not well founded. 11. In the considered opinion of this court, the order impugned passed by the court below dismissing the application preferred by the petitioner under Order 7, Rule 14 with the observations as aforesaid, does not suffer from any jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 12. In the result, the petition fails, it is hereby dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******