Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1222 (MP)

Vasudeo v. Bhagirath

2017-11-30

J.K.MAHESHWARI

body2017
ORDER 1. As the common question is involved, therefore, this order shall govern the disposal of Writ Petitions No.16724/11 and Writ Petition No.21873/11. 2. Being aggrieved by the order dated 25.8.2011 passed by IV Civil Judge ClassII, Khandwa in Civil Suit No.81-A/2009 rejecting the application filed by the defendants under Order VII rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter shall be referred to as ‘CPC’ for taking the documents on record, Writ Petition No.16724/2011 has been filed by the petitioners/defendants under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Being aggrieved by the order dated 25.8.2011 passed by IV Civil Judge ClassII, Khandwa in Civil Suit No.81A/2009 rejecting the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order VII rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter shall be referred to as ‘CPC’ for taking the documents on record, Writ Petition No.21873/2011 has been filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. On perusal of the record, it is apparent that the applications under Order VI rule 14 of the CPC filed by the plaintiffs and defendants for taking the documents on record have been rejected by the trial Court by the impugned order dated 25.8.2011 on the pretext that those documents have not been filed well within time. Looking to the fact that there is a stay prevalent since 2012 because of which the trial is held up, in my considered opinion, if both the parties have filed applications for taking the documents on record and the High Court of Madhya Pradesh documents are necessary for proper adjudication of the real controversy involved in the suit then those documents ought to be taken on record subject to compensating the other side but as in the present cases both the parties have filed applications for taking the documents on record, therefore, such question does not arise. 5. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 25.8.2011 passed by IV Civil Judge Class-II, Khandwa in Civil Suit No.81-A/2009 is hereby set aside. The applications under Order VII rule 14 of the CPC filed by the plaintiffs and defendants are allowed. The documents filed them are taken on record. All the legal issues can be addressed by both the parties at the time of exhibiting of those documents. 6. With the aforesaid observations, Writ Petitions No.16724/2011 and Writ Petition No.21873/2011 stand disposed of. The applications under Order VII rule 14 of the CPC filed by the plaintiffs and defendants are allowed. The documents filed them are taken on record. All the legal issues can be addressed by both the parties at the time of exhibiting of those documents. 6. With the aforesaid observations, Writ Petitions No.16724/2011 and Writ Petition No.21873/2011 stand disposed of. K. S. Rajput for petitioners in Writ Petition No.16724 of 2011; Sanjay Sarwate for petitioners in Writ Petition No.21873 of 2011; Girish Kekre, Government Advocate for respondent/State.