Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 173 (CHH)

Harnarayan Sharma v. Paras Vaid

2015-07-07

GOUTAM BHADURI

body2015
ORDER : Goutam Bhaduri, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and decree dated 13.04.2005, passed in C.S. No. 20-B/2004, passed by IIIrd Additional District Judge, Raipur (C.G.), whereby the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff was dismissed on the ground that the documents required to be filed alongwith the plaint were not filed at the time of filing of suit. 2. Brief facts of the case are that a suit was filed by the appellant for recovery of Rs. 68,244/- against the defendant on the basis of the pleading that the defendant has availed different loan at different point of time i.e. Rs. 18,000/- on 30.05.2001, Rs. 15,000/- on 22.06.2001 and Rs. 17,000/- on 30.07.2001 and agreed to pay interest @ 1% per month, thereby total Rs. 50,000/- was availed as a loan. 3. It was pleaded that after availing loan, the defendant/respondent failed to pay the loan in terms of the agreement and despite several demand, the same was not paid. Consequently, a legal notice was served recalling the amount of loan but despite such notice the amount of loan was not liquidated, consequently a civil suit for recovery was filed on 14.06.2004. 4. After service of notice, the defendant entered his appearance on 12.10.2014 but despite different opportunities the defendant failed to file his written statement as such his right to file written statement was closed on 22.01.2005. Subsequently, on 26.02.2005, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) read with Section151 of C.P.C., seeking permission of the Court to place certain documents on which the plaintiff relied as it could not be filed at the time of the filing of the suit. In the said application, it was stated that inadvertently the necessary documents were kept in other files, as such, it could not be produced, when the suit was filed, along-with the list of the documents with the plaint. The learned Court below after considering the same, rejected the said application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of C.P.C. on 17.03.2005 and thereafter, recorded the statement of plaintiff on 24.03.2005. Lastly the judgment and decree was passed on 13th April, 2005, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by observing that documents have not been filed in the suit consequently the claim made was not proved. Lastly the judgment and decree was passed on 13th April, 2005, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by observing that documents have not been filed in the suit consequently the claim made was not proved. Primarily challenge is to such order, whereby the right to file the documents was denied, consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that filing of a document is a procedural one and it has to be applied liberally. He would further submit that the Order 7 Rule 14(3) is enabling provision, which can not be given a narrow scope as it will lead to defeat the cause of justice. He would further submit that the bonafide reasons were stated in the application seeking to file the documents, which were supported by an affidavit. Therefore, in the facts of the case, the document should have been allowed to form part of record and plaintiff should have been allowed to adduce evidence on the basis of it. He further submits that the plaintiff was not given even reasonable time to challenge the order of denial of documents and perforce, the evidence was recorded without the document on record. Consequently, the dismissal of the suit followed. He therefore, submits that the trial had also not commenced in the facts of the case, the judgment and decree of the trial Court be set-aside and the matter be remitted back before the Court below for fresh adjudication after accepting the documents. 6. No representation is made on behalf of the respondent despite service of notice. 7. Perusal of the order sheet in this case would show that a suit was filed on 14.06.2004, thereafter the defendants entered his appearance on 12.10.2004. Subsequently, the written statement was not filed despite several opportunities granted and eventually right to file written statement was closed on 22.01.2005. Thereafter, the case was fixed for 26.02.2005 and on such date, an application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) read with Section151 C.P.C. supported by an affidavit was filed. In such application it was stated that at the time of filing of the plaint, the documents, which the plaintiff wanted to file could not be placed on record as inadvertently it remained in the other files. In such application it was stated that at the time of filing of the plaint, the documents, which the plaintiff wanted to file could not be placed on record as inadvertently it remained in the other files. The learned Court below while adjudicating the same, by an order dated 17.03.2005, dismissed the said application and immediately on 24.03.2005, fixed the case for evidence. Reading of the order sheet would show that on 24.03.2005, another prayer was made by the plaintiff to allow him to file the documents but it was refused and when the case was fixed in the second half of the day the plaintiff had to recorded his statement. 8. Having heard the counsel and perused the record of the case, in my considered opinion the approach of the Court in dismissing the application to file the document can not be endorsed in facts of the case. Considering the stage of the case, specially when right to file written statement was closed the learned Court below should have adopted a liberal approach in accepting the document. Admittedly the suit was at the trial stage and the evidence was yet to begin. Appreciating the similar analogy in the case of Suresh Patel and another Vs. Antarsingh Patel and others, reported in 2007 (4) M.P.L.J. 384, the High Court while allowing the document to be part of record observed that allowing the parties to file the document during trial should have been rather liberal as the evidence was yet to start. 9. Under the facts of this case, since the defendant's right to file written statement was closed, which remained unchallenged, in such circumstances even allowing the documents would have not caused any prejudice to the defendant. The document, if it is allowed to be filed by the plaintiff then defendant is always at liberty to deny the existence of a document filed by plaintiff and file any document in rebuttal if so needed. 10. It can not be disputed that in terms of O.VII, R.14 of the Code, where a plaintiff sues upon a document in his possession or power in support of his claim, he shall enter such document in a list, and shall produce it in Court when the plaint is presented by him and shall, at the same time deliver the document and a copy thereof to be filed with the plaint. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 14 thereof clearly provides that a document which ought to be produced in 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, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit. Sub-rule (4) thereof provides that nothing in the said rule shall apply to document produced for the cross-examination of the plaintiffs witnesses, or, handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory. Similar is the provision under the sub-clause (3) of Rule 1 of Order XIII of the Code. Being so, it cannot be disputed that if the plaintiff fails to mention the documents in the list annexed to the plaint and to place on record a copy of such document, which is required to be produced under the law at the time of filing of the plaint, the plaintiff is not entitled to produce any additional document thereafter without the leave of the Court. But, at the same time, it is also to be noted that nothing prevents the Court in its discretion to grant leave subsequent to the documents being produced before the Court even though such documents were not entered in the list annexed to the plaint. It would depend upon the facts of each case. Undoubtedly, the order of the Court in that regard will have to be a speaking and reasoned order. 11. It can not be forgotten that the provision comprised under O. VII, R. 14 of the Code relates to the procedure to be followed in the civil proceedings before the Court. The said provision is essentially to assist the parties as well as the Court in the matter of production of the documentary evidence of the plaintiff while adjudicating the dispute raised before the Court. Being so, it is essentially to assist the parties and the Court to arrive at an appropriate decision on the matter in dispute. Being so, the provisions in that regard is necessarily to be construed liberally, and no pedantic approach should be adopted while enforcing the said provision of law. Being so, it is essentially to assist the parties and the Court to arrive at an appropriate decision on the matter in dispute. Being so, the provisions in that regard is necessarily to be construed liberally, and no pedantic approach should be adopted while enforcing the said provision of law. The documentary evidence which is not disputed to be relevant and material for the just and appropriate decision in the matter, merely because the plaintiff had failed to enter the same in the list annexed to the plaint, could not be ignored, unless it is felt that there would be real prejudice would be caused to the defendant on account of the plaintiff being allowed to produce such documents. A document, which pertains to the matter in issue can not be said to cause prejudice to either of the parties, merely because there is some delay in production of such document. There would be ample opportunity to the defendant to meet those documents in the course of recording of evidence including the cross-examination of the witness. 12. In view of forgoing discussions, it is observed that in the facts of the given case, the judgment and decree of the Trial Court is liable to be set-aside, accordingly, the same is set-aside. 13. As a consequence, the application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of C.P.C., dated 26.02.2005 is allowed. The matter is remitted back to the Trial Court for fresh adjudication. The plaintiff shall be at liberty to file the documents in terms of this order and the Trial Court shall further record the evidence after notice to the defendant and may adjudicate the civil suit on merits. 14. No order as to costs.