Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1089 (HP)

Jeet Lal v. Kamaljeet Singh

2015-08-13

TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2015
JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.IV, Hamirpur, whereby he dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC, for permission to produce on record certain documents. 2. The petitioner had filed the application on the ground that the defendants’ witnesses had wrongly mentioned that there was no tree over the suit land. But, in the khasra girdawari, it had been reflected that there were number of trees standing thereupon and, therefore, he be permitted to produce on record the copy of khasra girdawari, copy of aks musavi, copy of certificate of Gram Panchayat, Bahanwin, District Hamirpur and copy of the Will dated 29.08.2012 and certain photographs. 3. This application was rejected by the learned Court below on the ground that the application was not maintainable on account of inordinate delay in filing the same and moreover the documents attached were not perse admissible in the eyes of law. 4. The petitioner has assailed the order on number of grounds as taken in the memo of petition. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. 5. At the outset, it may be observed that under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC only those documents can be ordered to be placed on record which have some semblance or are connected with the lis. The lis is determined by issue-wise findings recorded therein and, therefore, the documents as sought to be produced must have some connection with the lis i.e. issues framed in the case and thereafter it has to be further concluded that the same would not be necessary for the just and proper decision of the case. Merely making an averment that the documents are necessary for the complete and proper adjudication or claiming that no prejudice would be caused to the other party or the petitioner would suffer an irreparable loss and injury in case the application is not allowed or to claim that the application is bonafide, is of no consequence. 6. Judged in light of the aforesaid observations, it would be noticed that the following issues in the case came to be settled on 04.01.2013:- 1. Whether suit land is joint between the parties to the suit? OPP. 2. 6. Judged in light of the aforesaid observations, it would be noticed that the following issues in the case came to be settled on 04.01.2013:- 1. Whether suit land is joint between the parties to the suit? OPP. 2. Whether defendants are raising construction and changing nature of the suit land without getting the same partitioned? OPP. 3. Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent prohibitory injunction, as prayed for? OPP. 4. Whether plaintiff is entitled to in-alternative relief of joint possession by way of demolition? OPP. 5. Whether parties to the suit are in separate possession over the suit land by way of family arrangement, as alleged? OPD. 6. Whether suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in its present form? OPD. 7. Whether there lies no cause of action in favour of plaintiff to file the present suit? OPD. 8. Whether plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his own act and conduct? OPD. 9. Whether suit of the plaintiff is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD. 10. Whether defendants are entitled to special costs under Section 35-A CPC? OPD. 11. Relief. 7. It is evident from a perusal of the aforesaid issues that the documents as are sought to be produced by the petitioner have no direct or indirect bearing with the issues so framed. The petitioner was required to explain as to how the documents now sought to be produced have bearing on the merits of the case. The mere fact that the defendants’ witnesses have stated that there was no tree over the suit land would require rebuttal only in case it was “a fact in dispute” and issue to this effect had been framed. After-all, issue can either be issue of fact or a mixed question of fact and law or an issue of law upon which adjudication can be made. Documents sought to be placed on record should be germane to the issues involved in the suit. Once, the documents are not relatable directly or indirectly to the issues framed in the case, I see no illegality, impropriety or irregularity in the order passed by the learned Court below and accordingly this petition is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of and the interim order passed by this Court on 28.05.2015 is vacated.