Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1898 (RAJ)

Surjan Ahir v. Ram Singh Rajput

2018-09-11

ALOK SHARMA

body2018
JUDGMENT Alok Sharma, J. - Heard the counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff (hereafter 'plaintiff') and perused the impugned order dated 3.8.2018 passed by the Trial Court dismissing the plaintiff's application filed under Order 7, Rule 14 (3) CPC. 2. Order 7, Rule 14 (1) CPC provides that where a plaintiff sues upon a document or relies upon document in his possession or power in support of his claim, he shall enter such documents 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 (2) of Order 7, Rule 14 CPC provides that where documents are not in the possession or power of the plaintiff, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose possession or power they are. Order 7, Rule 14(3) CPC 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 is not so produced or entered accordingly, it shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit. 3. The aforesaid provisions of CPC do make it near imperative for the plaintiff to file all documents in support of his suit in the first instance and make a reference thereto in the list of documents filed alongwith suit. Indeed Order 7, Rule 14 (3) CPC as an exception to the normal rule allows document not so filed, to be subsequently filed, but only with the leave of the Court. That leave of the Court entails the exercise of its discretion in allowing or not allowing a document belatedly filed to be taken on record and received in evidence. 4. In the instant case on the purported agreement to sell dated 07.11.1997, the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance in the year 2016. On the summons being served upon the respondents-defendants (hereafter 'defendants'), they put in appearance and filed their written statement of denial. Issues were framed on 10.11.2016 and the trial commenced. Four of the plaintiffs' witnesses were thereafter examined. On the summons being served upon the respondents-defendants (hereafter 'defendants'), they put in appearance and filed their written statement of denial. Issues were framed on 10.11.2016 and the trial commenced. Four of the plaintiffs' witnesses were thereafter examined. At that stage, the plaintiff moved an application under Order 7, Rule 14 (3) CPC praying that a copy of the jamabandi samvat 2051-2055 be taken on record. The Trial Court has dismissed the said application on 9.4.2018 and the reasons stated therefor were that the document in issue i.e. jamabandi samvat of 2051-2055 was in the knowledge of the plaintiff as was evident from the fact that his own case in his application under Order 7, Rule 14 (3) CPC was that, on a question put to him in the cross-examination, he felt and was advised that the said document should be brought on record of the Trial Court. The trial court further held that even otherwise the stage on which the application was filed after evidence of four of the plaintiff's witnesses would entail, if the applications were allowed, delay in the adjudication of the suit. 5. It is well settled that where the discretion of the Trial Court, as one under Order 7, Rule 14 (3) CPC or otherwise is founded on good reasons and is not palpably capricious, there is no warrant to interference therewith in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. I am of the considered view that the plaintiff before setting up his case and more particularly suit for specific performance, ought to have been cautious and careful annexing all documents he fancied relevant for adjudication of his purported right agitated. Where a plaintiff failed to so do as in the instant case, deviating on his mere askance from the procedure provided under CPC without good cause would only lead to an environment of delayed trials for which there is more than enough flak for the Courts in the public domain. 6. In the facts of the case, I find no force in the petition. 7. Dismissed.