Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2487 (ALL)

Beena v. Amarnath Gupta

2014-08-13

DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA

body2014
JUDGMENT Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J. Heard learned counsel for the revision-applicant and learned counsel appearing for the sole opposite party. 2. The S.C.C. Suit was filed by the plaintiff (opposite party herein) for arrears of rent and ejectment which was decreed ex-parte on 19.11.2010. On an application moved by the defendant under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC, ex-parte decree was set aside and the suit was restored on 20.01.2011. Thereafter, defendant filed her written statement denying the plaint allegations. After filing of the written statement, replication is said to have been filed by the plaintiff along with certain documents viz. copy of receipt book and certain affidavits of the witnesses. An application Ga-2/46 was moved by the defendant stating therein that the affidavits filed by the plaintiff and the documents annexed with the replication should not be taken on record for the reason that no leave of the court as required under Order VII Rule 14 (3) of CPC has been obtained by the plaintiff. 3. Learned counsel for the revision-applicant has also drawn attention of the Court to the provisions contained in Order VIII Rule 9 of CPC wherein it has been provided that no pleading subsequent to the written statement of the defendant shall be presented except by permission of the Court and upon such terms as the Court thinks fit. He has stated that neither any leave as required under Order VIII Rule 9, nor as required under Order VII Rule 14 (3) of CPC has been granted, hence, the documents sought to be produced by the plaintiff after filing of the written statement should have been ordered to be discarded. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party submits that the plaintiff had filed the documents and the affidavits along with the replication and had also moved an application seeking permission/leave of the court to produce the said documents. He further submitted that while rejecting the application moved by the defendant, namely, Application No. Ga-2/46, by means of order dated 09.03.2011, it would be deemed that the learned court below has granted leave to the plaintiff to produce the said documents. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, the Court does not anywhere find that leave as prayed for by the plaintiff for producing the documents after filing of the written statement was granted by the court below. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, the Court does not anywhere find that leave as prayed for by the plaintiff for producing the documents after filing of the written statement was granted by the court below. 6. The provisions contained in Order VII Rule 14 (3) of CPC, in this regard are very clear which provide that if a document which ought to be produced by the plaintiff at the time of presentation of the plaint or entered in the list as a document to be annexed to the plaint, is not produced or entered in the list accordingly, then without leave of the court, such documents cannot be received in evidence on behalf of the plaintiff. 7. Admittedly in this case, as submitted by learned counsel for the opposite party, an application seeking leave of the court to receive the documents filed by the plaintiff after filing of the written statement was moved but no order on the said application appears to have been passed. 8. In the above circumstances, since the documents filed by the plaintiff after filing of the written statement have been ordered to be received by the court below without granting leave in express words, I am of the opinion that the impugned order dated 09.03.2011 is liable to be set aside. 9. Accordingly, the revision-petition is allowed and the order dated 09.03.2011 passed by Ist Additional District Judge, Gonda is set aside. 10. However, the learned court below is directed to consider the application moved by the plaintiff, seeking leave of the court to produce/file the documents and affidavits of witnesses, after filing of the written statement and decide the same expeditiously, say, within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 11. It is made clear that this order setting aside the impugned order dated 09.03.2011 has been passed only on account of non-compliance of the provisions contained in Order VII Rule 14 (3) of CPC, hence, any observation made herein will not have any bearing on the disposal of application which has been moved by the plaintiff for filing of documents and the affidavits of witnesses after filing of written statement. 12. 12. As the suit is pending before the court below since the year 2010, I feel it appropriate to direct the learned court below to expedite the proceedings of the suit itself and conclude the same expeditiously, preferably within a period of nine months from the date of disposal of application seeking leave of the court. 13. There will be no order as to costs.