Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1703 (RAJ)

Haji Amin Siroha v. Dungarmal

2018-08-10

ALOK SHARMA

body2018
JUDGMENT Alok Sharma, J. The petitioner-plaintiff (hereafter 'the plaintiff') is aggrieved of the order dated 14-2-2018 passed by Civil Judge Jhunjhunu in Suit No.14/2011 dismissing his applications under Order 7 Rule 14 and Order 6 Rule 17 read with 151 CPC. 2. The facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents-defendants (hereafter 'the defendants') with the averment that he was owner of a plot admeasuring 410 sq. yds. being the suit property after having purchased the same from the defendant No.2 Vinod Kumar on 20- 6-2008 through registered sale deed on a consideration of Rs. 1,47,000/-. The plaintiff claimed possession of the plot in issue. It was stated that construction over the plot have been thereafter made. 3. The defendant No.1 Dungarmal threatened to dispossess him. That cause of action entailed filing of the suit. The defendants filed a written statement of denial on summons served and issues were framed on 30-3-2016. 4. On 21-9-2016 the plaintiff filed an application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC for taking on record certain documents purportedly to prove his case laid in the suit. He also filed another application on 10-7-2017 under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint stating that the amendment sought would not change the nature of the suit. Both the applications were opposed by the defendants. 5. The trial court considering the submissions of both the plaintiff and the defendant held that there was no good cause for belatedly seeking to bring on record the document which were not even referred to in the plaint. It held that issues having been framed and no proper explanation for the delay in filing the document under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC being proferred by the plaintiff there was no good ground for exercising the court's discretion. In fact the trial court concluded that as the application had been filed to delay the trial in the suit, it was dismissed with costs of Rs. 200/-. 6. In fact the trial court concluded that as the application had been filed to delay the trial in the suit, it was dismissed with costs of Rs. 200/-. 6. The plaintiff's application for amendment of his plaint was also dismissed by the trial court on the ground that issues in the suit were framed on 30-3-2016 and only thereafter the application in issue was filed on 10-7-2017 without disclosing the date or the incident by which the new facts, sought to be amended, came to the knowledge of the plaintiff and whether such facts were not in the plaintiff's knowledge when the suit was filed. 7. Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the amendment sought to be brought on record were relevant to the plaintiff proving his case and the application ought to have been allowed in the interest of justice as the suit was only at the stage of plaintiff's evidence and no prejudice could be caused to the defendant. Counsel submitted that the trial court was overtly influenced by the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC without regard to the justice of the case. That was the trial court's failure to exercise its jurisdiction in the interest of a fair and just adjudication of the dispute before it. 8. On the issue of rejection of the plaintiff's application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC counsel relied on the judgment in the case of Chakreshwari Construction Private Limited Vs. Manohar Lal, (2017) 5 SCC 212 and submitted that the trial court has the discretion to allow subsequent filing of documents in support of the plaint by resort to Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC. Counsel submitted that the two documents in issue in the application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC i.e. sale-deed dated 5-9-1990 by Panchayat Malsisar in favour Jagpal Singh son of Lakhu Singh and the sale deed dated 1-7-1997 by Niranjan in favour of Dungarmal were relevant to the issues before the trial court. Yet the trial court again failed to reasonably exercise its discretion and allow the application. The defendants could have been compensated for the delay/inconvenience to be caused by costs. Counsel submitted that the mechanical refusal to exercise the discretion by the trial court is not in consonance with the justice and hence warrants correction by the court in the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction. 9. Mr. The defendants could have been compensated for the delay/inconvenience to be caused by costs. Counsel submitted that the mechanical refusal to exercise the discretion by the trial court is not in consonance with the justice and hence warrants correction by the court in the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction. 9. Mr. Brij Bhushan Ojha, counsel for defendants supported the impugned order passed by the trial court and prayed for dismissal of the petition. 10. Heard. Considered. 11. I am of the considered view that a composite petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging two orders on two wholly separate and distinct provisions of CPC one Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and the other Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC is not maintainable. Each of the application's dismissal constituted a separate cause of action. The petition is therefore liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. Besides, even otherwise, the order of the trial court both on the application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC and Order 6 Rule 17 CPC passed in its discretion is well considered and founded on objective consideration of the material on record and extant statutory provisions. The proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC cautions against amendment of pleadings subsequent to framing of issues. 12. There is a public purpose thereto i.e. expedited adjudication of civil disputes and at the same time exclusion of mischief, by a litigating party, of delaying trial and corresponding harassment to the opposite party. In the instant case the amendment to the plaint was sought several months after the issues were framed on 30-3-2016. Further the amendment sought related to facts which were well within the plaintiff's knowledge when the suit was filed. Even otherwise the amendment sought was not necessary for determining the real questions in controversy raised in the plaint as the trial court has recorded and counsel for the plaintiff has failed to otherwise establish. Similarly the plaintiff did not set out any good and reasonable ground for the trial court to exercise its discretion in allowing belated filing of documents in support of his plaint which the plaintiff did not even aver in his pleadings. Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC is an exception to the rule of procedure that the plaintiff file documents in support of his case at the outset along with the plaint itself. Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC is an exception to the rule of procedure that the plaintiff file documents in support of his case at the outset along with the plaint itself. The exception under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC can be invoked only with the leave of the trial court. That leave of the court is discretionary. Facts on which the leave of the court is sought under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC are therefore relevant. Where the trial court finds that the documents in issue could have been earlier filed for reason of being in the knowledge of the plaintiff, or with due diligence could have been in his knowledge or delay in seeking to bring documents on record was unexplained or the documents in issue were irrelevant to the issue/s for adjudication before the court, it can refuse to exercise its discretion and deny leave to take such documents on record. That is what the trial court has done in dismissing the plaintiff's application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC. 13. In the over all facts of the case, I find no illegality and perversity in the impugned order passed by the trial court to warrant interference therewith under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 14. I find no force in the petition. Dismissed.