Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 59 (MP)

Taranjeet Singh Hora v. State of M. P.

2016-01-25

PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA

body2016
ORDER 1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the constitution of India is at the instance of one of the defendant in the suit challenging the order of trial Court dated 10.1.2015 whereby the petitioner's application under section 151 CPC for supply of the documents produced along with the plaint has been rejected. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 11.3.2015 whereby the review application has been dismissed with cost. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was entitled to receive the documents filed along with the plaint and the Court below has committed an error in rejecting the said prayer and the review petition with cost. 3. As against this counsel for respondents No.2 to 4 has opposed the writ petition. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that the trial Court has passed elaborate and reasoned orders while rejecting the petitioner's prayer for grant of documents as also the review petition. The trial Court has reached to the conclusion that the documents filed along with the list of documents with plaint were already supplied to the petitioner. The trial Court has noted that the objection relating to the non supply of the documents was noted in the order sheet dated 13.5.2014 and thereafter the documents were supplied. In the order sheet dated 27.6.2014 it was noted that copy of the plaint along with the documents was supplied. Thereafter written-statement was filed by the petitioner, the issues were framed and the matter was fixed for evidence. Till then no objection relating to non supply of the documents was raised by the petitioner and at the evidence stage, this objection was raised. Trial Court considering the order sheets and the record of the case has found that the documents were already supplied to the petitioner earlier and two documents namely x-ray report and disability certificate were again supplied to the petitioner on the date of passing of the impugned order by the trial Court. In the review petition the petitioner has again raised same plea. Hence, the trial Court had noted that the petitioner's objection is in respect of all documents mentioned in the list of documents filed with the plaint. Hence the plea that the documents were not supplied initially is incorrect. In the review petition the petitioner has again raised same plea. Hence, the trial Court had noted that the petitioner's objection is in respect of all documents mentioned in the list of documents filed with the plaint. Hence the plea that the documents were not supplied initially is incorrect. That apart the trial Court has also noted the stand of the respondent/plaintiff that he does not want to rely upon these documents and exhibit the same. In these circumstances the trial Court has not committed any error in rejecting the petitioner's application for supply of documents. 5. Even otherwise, the scope of interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India is limited. The Supreme Court in the matter of Shalini Shyam Shetty and another v. Rajendra Shankar Patil, reported in (2010)8 SCC 329 , has held that High Court in exercise of its power of superintendence cannot interfere to correct mere errors of law or fact or just because another view than the one taken by the Tribunals or Courts subordinate to it, is a possible view. The High Court can exercise this power when there has been a patent perversity in the orders of Tribunals and Courts subordinate to it or where there has been a gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted. 6. Keeping in view the aforesaid, I find no ground to interfere in the impugned order of the trial Court. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.