Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 707 (RAJ)

Rujdar Kha v. Gullu Khatri

2018-03-07

ALOK SHARMA

body2018
JUDGMENT : Alok Sharma, J. The petitioners-Plaintiffs (hereinafter ‘the plaintiffs') are aggrieved of the order dated 16-12-2016 passed by Civil Judge 2 and Judicial Magistrate No.1 Alwar dismissing their application under Order 7 Rules 14 (3) CPC. 2. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order dated 16-12-2016 whereby plaintiff's application under Order 7, Rule 14(3) CPC has been dismissed by the trial court holding that the report of Halka Patwari dated 29-10-2014, which was sought to be taken on record of the court, had been prepaed behind the back of the defendants and in any event on the issue of possession of the suit property it was for the plaintiff to prove his case on the basis of substantive evidence. The trial court held that aside of doubtful nature of the report of the Halka Patwari, for reason of it not being verified/endorsed by competent authority, it was not relevant for adjudication of the issues framed. So holding the trial court dismissed the plaintiff's application under Order 7, Rule 14(3) CPC. 3. Order 7, Rule 14 provides that where a plaintiff sues upon a document or relies upon a 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 3 by him and shall at the same time deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the plaint. Order 7, Rule 14(3) CPC further 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 produced or entered accordingly, shall not, without the leave of the court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit. 4. It is thus apparent that a document not produced with the plaint, not included in the list could be filed in court only with the leave of the court. To grant leave clearly lies in the discretion of the trial court. It is well settled that where a discretion has to be exercised, over all facts of the case have to be considered and it is no right of any party to avail it. To grant leave clearly lies in the discretion of the trial court. It is well settled that where a discretion has to be exercised, over all facts of the case have to be considered and it is no right of any party to avail it. In the instant case the trial court has exercised its discretion in dismissing the plaintiff's application under Order 7, Rule 14(3) CPC inter alia on the ground that the said document was of questionable veracity, as it was not verified by a superior authority of the Halka Patwari prepared during pendency of the suit and behind the defendants' back to boot and not central to the adjudication of the issue of possession which were to be adjudicated in terms of the evidence in the course of trial. 5. The discretion having exercised by the trial court for well detailed reasons, it warrants no interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. The petition is without force. Dismissed.