Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 889 (MP)

Rajendra Singh v. Jagdish Singh

2015-08-25

SUJOY PAUL

body2015
ORDER 1. This petition filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs is directed against the order dated 27.4.2011 whereby his three applications preferred under 8 rule 1 CPC dated 3.11.2010 (Annexure P-6), application dated 25.11.2010 preferred under Order 7 rule 14 CPC (Annexure P-7) and another application dated 22.3.2011 (Annexure P-8) are disallowed. By the same impugned order, the applications preferred by the defendants under Order 8 rule 1 CPC (Annexure P-9) dated 25.11.2010 and application dated 4.3.2011 (Annexure P-10) are allowed. 2. During the course of argument, it is canvassed that defendant witness No.3 Aman Singh entered the witness box. He deposed that he is resident of village Imaliya. The stand of the petitioner/plaintiff is that he does not reside in the said village and to prove this, the said applications were filed. Along with the said application, voter list of village Imaliya, sale deed and residence proof etc, were filed. The defendants filed an application Annexure P-9. Along with the said application, a Khasra entry is filed to show that Aman Singh still has some piece of land at Imaliya. In addition, with Annexure P-10 no dues certificate and voter list are filed to show that Aman Singh is still a resident of Imaliya. 3. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, it is seen that parties have taken a diametrically opposite stand on the question regarding the residence of Aman Singh at Imaliya. The Court below has allowed the application of the defendants which contains some documents to show that he is resident of Imaliya whereas applications of petitioners were rejected on the ground that said applications are belatedly filed and if the same are allowed, the case may be required to be reopened from a particular stage. Learned counsel for the parties advanced their arguments for and against the said order. 4. I have heard the parties at length and perused the record. 5. The applications of petitioners are basically rejected on the ground that same are belatedly filed. However, fact remains that the applications filed by the defendants even after the date of filing of petitioners’ applications, are allowed by imposing some cost on the defendants. The basic issue before the Court emerging from the said applications filed by the parties is regarding the residence of Aman Singh. However, fact remains that the applications filed by the defendants even after the date of filing of petitioners’ applications, are allowed by imposing some cost on the defendants. The basic issue before the Court emerging from the said applications filed by the parties is regarding the residence of Aman Singh. This is said that “sunlight is the best disinfectant”, meaning thereby, the transparency and fair play in action is a part and parcel of the fair proceedings. If the documents of other side are belatedly accepted, applications preferred by the petitioners should not have been rejected on the ground of delay. More so when defendants applications are allowed, the petitioners automatically will get an opportunity to putforth their defence. The aspect of delay cannot be mechanically applied without considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. In the present case, in the fitness of things, in my view the Court below should have allowed the applications preferred by the plaintiff. Merely because in certain applications, plaintiff has mentioned that the same are filed under Order 8 rule 1 CPC, the prayer will not be without any basis because the power of the trial Court to take those documents on record can be traced from the other provisions of the CPC. 6. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, the Court below has mechanically rejected the applications of the petitioners. The said applications are accordingly allowed. The order passed by the Court below to the extent applications of petitioners were disallowed is set aside. For filing those applications belatedly, petitioner shall pay Rs.1000/- ( Rupees One thousand only) as costs to the other side on the next date of hearing before the trial Court. Subject to aforesaid, impugned order is set aside. The Court below will proceed from that stage in accordance with law. This Court has no doubt that Court below will leave no stone unturned to decide the suit. 7. With the aforesaid, petition is disposed of.