Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 605 (MP)

Bali Mohammad v. Anwar

2018-07-10

S.A.DHARMADHIKARI

body2018
ORDER 1. Heard finally with the consent of both the parties. 2. In this Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India the petitioner has assailed the legality, validity and propriety of the orders dated 14.3.2012 and 20.6.2012 passed in Civil Suit No. 29A/2011 pending before the IInd Civil Judge Class-1, Sheopur whereby application under Order 7 rule 14(3) CPC for bringing the document on record has been rejected and vide order dated 20.6.2012 the review application has also been dismissed. 3. The brief facts of the case are that a suit for declaration and permanent injunction was filed by the petitioner regarding the suit land bearing Survey No. 809, admeasuring 2 Biswa, situated at Kasba Sheopur, District Sheopur stating therein that the petitioner has purchased this land vide registered sale deed dated 21.3.1985 from respondent No. 4 Abdul Gaffar Khan. The name of the petitioner was mutated in the Revenue records. The respondent No. 1 on the basis of some forged document filed an application for diversion of the land including the suit land and got the diversion order on 20.4.1999 from SDO Sheopur, thereafter an appeal was filed by the petitioner. On the basis of the order passed by the SDO respondents denied the title to the petitioner, therefore, he had no option but to file the suit for declaration and permanent injunction. During the pendency of the suit, the appeal filed before the Collector was allowed and the said order was filed by the respondents before the Commissioner and the appeal was dismissed vide order dated 12.8.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner filed revision before the Board of Revenue which was admitted and order to maintain status quo was passed. The petitioner filed a application under Order 7 rule 14 CPC with the prayer to take the ordersheet, which is an interim order of the Revenue Court, on record. After hearing, the learned trial Court dismissed the application vide order dated 14.3.2012. The review petition was also dismissed vide order dated 20.6.2012. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court erred in rejecting the application saying that it has been filed at the stage of final argument. The certified copy of the order is a public document and there can be no suspicion of its genuineness, therefore, the prayer for taking the document on record could not have been rejected. 5. The certified copy of the order is a public document and there can be no suspicion of its genuineness, therefore, the prayer for taking the document on record could not have been rejected. 5. Per contra learned counsel for the respondents submitted that on bare perusal of the application under Order 7 rule 14 CPC it can be seen that no reasons have been assigned as to why the documents are being filed at such a belated stage and reasons for not filing the same earlier. He further submitted that the petitioner wants to bring on record an interim order passed by the Revenue Court. The order of the Revenue Court is not binding on the civil Court. The application was filed solely for the purpose of delaying trial due to the interim order passed by this Court, a suit which was filed in the year 1999 is still pending. The trial Court has rightly recorded the finding that the plaintiffs evidence has been closed and the matter is at the stage of defendant evidence. On these grounds he prays for rejection of the petition. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. The petitioner is not in a position to satisfy this Court that the said document (interim order) was not within the knowledge of the petitioner earlier or could not be produced at the appropriate time inspite of due diligence. In any case the proceeding of the Revenue Court which are inconclusive are not binding on the civil Court and vice-versa. Therefore, refusing to take proceedings of the Revenue Court on record which are inconclusive, the trial Court has not committed any error. the impugned order does not call for any interference. Accordingly the writ petition stands dismissed. The interim order granted by this Court on 25.9.2012 stands vacated. Considering the fact that the civil suit is pending since the year 1999, the trial Court is directed to conclude the proceedings in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.