Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1642 (HP)

Ved Ram v. Lot Ram

2019-11-05

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2019
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. 1. By way of this petition, the petitioners who are defendants before the learned trial Court, have assailed order dated 25.06.2019, passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge, Kullu, H.P. in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 200-VI/2014 in Civil Suit No. 198 of 2014, titled as Lot Ram and Others vs. Ved Ram and Others, vide which an application filed by the respondents herein under Order 7, Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to produce the original Will, Parcha Jamabandi and certificate issued by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kullu, H.P. has been allowed by the learned Court below. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that impugned order to the extent original Will has now been allowed to be placed on record per se is not sustainable in the eyes of law as while passing the said order, learned trial Court has erred in not appreciating that it was permitting the applicants to place on record a Will, executed by petitioner No. 1 herein Ved Ram which stood revoked by him and which was not a relevant document for the decision of the suit. He has argued that as the testator of the Will was still alive, contents thereof had no force in the eyes of law and this extremely important aspect of the matter has been ignored by the learned trial Court while passing the impugned order. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/ plaintiffs submits that there was nothing wrong with the order which has been passed by the learned trial Court because as photocopy of the Will in issue was already on record, therefore, order passed by the learned trial Court, permitting the plaintiffs to place original on record cannot be faulted with. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties as also impugned order as well as other documents appended with the petition. 5. Order 7, Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure 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 document in list and shall produce it in the Court when the plaint is presented by him and shall at the same time deliver the document and a copy thereof be filed with the plaint. Sub-rule (2) of Order 7 Rule 14 of the Code further provides that where any such document is not in the possession or power of the plaintiff, he shall wherever possible state in whose possession or power it is. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 14 thereof envisages that a document which ought to be produced in the Court by the plaintiff when the plaint is presented or to be entered in the list to be added or to 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. 6. In my considered view, in case an application is filed under Order 7, Rule 14 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, by the plaintiff wherein leave of the Court is being sought to place a document, which was not placed on record in terms of sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Code, then it is not as if, the Court concerned has to mechanically allow the application by permitting the plaintiff to place on record the documents, prayed for. 7. Coming to the facts of the present case, though the permission granted by the learned trial Court to place on record Parcha Jamabandi and certificate issued by the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Kullu, H.P. cannot be faulted with, said documents being public documents, but the permission which has been granted to place on record the original Registered Will dated 08.04.2003, is not justified. While permitting the plaintiffs to place on record the original of the said Will, there is no discussion in the impugned order as to why learned trial Court was permitting the plaintiffs to place the original of the said Will when it was a matter of record that the testator of the Will was alive and stood impleaded in the main Civil Suit as defendant No. 1 and Will of an alive person was of no use. This demonstrates that the order has been passed by the learned trial Court in a routine mundane manner and there has not been due appreciation of the pleadings on record while passing the impugned order. 8. This demonstrates that the order has been passed by the learned trial Court in a routine mundane manner and there has not been due appreciation of the pleadings on record while passing the impugned order. 8. Learned trial Court has erred in not appreciating that in the event of an application being filed under Order 7, Rule 14 (3) of the Code, it is the duty of the Court to make a minimal scrutiny as to whether the document being intended to be placed on record is really required for the purpose of the adjudication of the lis or not and whether the parties have satisfied as to why earlier it could not do so despite due diligence. This is lacking in the impugned order. There is no finding returned by the learned Court below that it was satisfied that the plaintiffs despite due-diligence could not place the relevant document on record and placing of the same was necessary for the purpose of the adjudication of the case. I reiterate that this was necessary in the peculiar facts of this case wherein the document which was being intended to be placed by the plaintiffs was a Will executed by defendant No. 1 himself. 9. Accordingly, this petition is partly allowed and the order passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge, Kullu, H.P. in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 200-VI/2014 in Civil Suit No. 198 of 2014, titled as Lot Ram and Others vs. Ved Ram and Others is set aside to the extent it has permitted the respondents/plaintiffs to place on record original of the Registered Will dated 08.04.2003. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand dismissed. Interim order, if any, also stands vacated.