Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1662 (HP)

Jaishi Ram v. Hanshu

2019-11-06

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. 1. The present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been maintained by the petitioner, who was the plaintiff before the learned trial Court (hereinafter to be called as "the plaintiff") against the order dated 16.08.2018, passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Court No. 2, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. in CMA No. 356/6 of 2018, in Civil Suit No. 77/1 of 2011, whereby the application, under Order 7, Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, filed by the plaintiff was rejected. 2. Briefly stating the facts, giving rise to the present petition are that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the respondents/defendants (hereinafter to be called as "the defendants") and during the pendency of the suit the plaintiff filed an application under Order 7, Rule 14 CPC to bring on record and prove an application filed by defendants No. 1, 2 and 4 for partition of the property before the learned Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur to show the greediness and malafide intention of the defendants. 3. The application filed by the plaintiff was contested by the defendants by filing reply, wherein it has been averred that in the written statement it is clearly mentioned that defendant No. 1 is son of Sh. Pohlo and the plaintiff in para 7 has clearly pleaded that it is the plaintiff and defendants No. 6 to 9 who had succeeded Smt. Duhri Devi, who died issue-less. So, the plaintiff and defendants No. 6 to 9 could not be her class-1 heirs, as such, the plaintiff cannot deprive any benefit by producing the copy of objection submitted by defendants No. 1 to 4. It has been further averred in the reply that defendant No. 1 was not born out of the genes of Sh. Pohlo and Smt. Fimmo, but when he was a kid, he was handed over to Smt. Duhri Devi, so, he used to consider her like mother. Lastly, it has been averred that the present application has been filed just to delay the matter and the objections are not essential for proper adjudication of the matter and prayer for dismissal of the application has been made. The learned trial Court vide order dated 16.08.2018, dismissed the application so filed by the plaintiff. Lastly, it has been averred that the present application has been filed just to delay the matter and the objections are not essential for proper adjudication of the matter and prayer for dismissal of the application has been made. The learned trial Court vide order dated 16.08.2018, dismissed the application so filed by the plaintiff. Therefore, aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner/ plaintiff approached this Court by way of present petition. 4. Mr. Ajay Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued that the learned Court below has committed jurisdictional error in not allowing the application to produce on record the document. He has further argued that since the document was necessary for proper adjudication of the case, the present petition may be allowed and the document may be ordered to be placed on record. In support of his contentions, Mr. Ajay Kumar, learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance upon the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kailash vs. Nanhku and Others, (2005) 4 SCC 480 . 5. On the Other hand, Mr. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has argued that it is nowhere of the case of the defendant/petitioner that he is inheriting on the basis of natural succession and in these circumstances, the document which the applicant wanted to produce on record cannot be produced on record. He has further argued that the document was in possession of the petitioner in the year 2016 and there is no reason why it was not placed on record uptill 2018, so in these circumstances, the present application deserves dismissal. In support of his contentions, learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance upon the following judicial pronouncements of this Hon'ble High Court:- (1) Jeet Lal vs. Kamaljeet Singh and Others, (2016) 1 HLR 6 (2) Piar Chand vs. Deepika and Others, (2017) 1 HLR 23 (3) Prem Lal vs. Sh. Rajinder Kumar, (2018) Latest HLJ 188 (HP) 6. To appreciate the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the entire record in detail. 7. The document which now the plaintiff wants to produced on record was in his possession in the year 2016 and application under Order 7, Rule 14, read with Section 151 CPC was presented in the year 2018. To appreciate the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the entire record in detail. 7. The document which now the plaintiff wants to produced on record was in his possession in the year 2016 and application under Order 7, Rule 14, read with Section 151 CPC was presented in the year 2018. So, the plaintiff has failed to show how the document is required and what is its relevancy. The only ground taken by the plaintiff is to show the greediness of the defendants. In these circumstances, it can be said that the plaintiff himself has committed a sufficient delay in filing the application to produce the document on record, which is unexplained and there is no relevancy shown by the plaintiff and the order passed by learned trial Court is correct on the facts. 8. Now coming to the judgment cited by learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/plaintiff, the same is under Election Law and further the ratio of the said judgment is not application to the facts of the present case. 9. On the other hand, in Jeet Lal vs. Kamaljeet Singh and Others, (2016) 1 HLR 6, a coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble High Court has held as under: "7. It is evident from a perusal of the aforesaid issues that the documents as are sought to be produced by the petitioner have no direct or indirect bearing with the issues so framed. The petitioner was required to explain as to how the documents now sought to be produced have bearing on the merits of the case. The mere fact that the defendants' witnesses have stated that there was no tree over the suit land would require rebuttal only in case it was "a fact in dispute" and issue to this effect had been framed. After-all, issue can either be issue of fact or a mixed question of fact and law or an issue of law upon which adjudication can be made. Documents sought to be placed on record should be germane to the issues involved in the suit. Once, the documents are not relatable directly or indirectly to the issues framed in the case, I see no illegality, impropriety or irregularity in the order passed by the learned Court below and accordingly this petition is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Once, the documents are not relatable directly or indirectly to the issues framed in the case, I see no illegality, impropriety or irregularity in the order passed by the learned Court below and accordingly this petition is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of and the interim order passed by this Court on 28.05.2015 is vacated." 10. Similarly, a Coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble High Court in Piar Chand vs. Deepika and Others, (2017) 1 HLR 23, has held as under: "12. It is not the law that under no circumstance document can be taken on record, but then it has to be with the leave of the Court, exercise of which, in any case has to be within the settled parameters of law and unexplained delay, lack of due diligence and furnishing inadequate explanation, inter alia being certain factors not warranting favourable exercise thereof. Prejudice, if at all, is to be shown by the plaintiff and not the defendant for the statutory provisions under Order 7, Rule 14 CPC, mandates plaintiff to prepare a list and produce all documents with the plaint. Now in the instant case, what prevented the plaintiff to do so and wake up from deep slumber after more than 15 years remains unexplained." 11. In Prem Lal vs. Sh. Rajinder Kumar, (2018) Latest HLJ 188 (HP), this Hon'ble Court has held as under: "2. On taking into consideration the given facts and circumstances of the case, in the considered opinion of this Court, learned trial Court has not committed any illegality and irregularity in dismissing the application for the reason that the prayer for producing the documents in question on record is not only belated but the same are also not required for just and effective decision of the case. As already held by learned trial Judge, the latest Jamabandi of the suit land is already on record. Otherwise also, nothing is there in the pleadings in the plaint as to how Misal Hakiyat Bandobast Jadid is a necessary document for the purpose of adjudication of the controversy in the main suit. As regards, the copy of judgment and decree passed in the previously instituted suit, again there is no pleadings in the plaint that the same pertains to the suit land or the previously instituted suit had any nexus with the present litigation. As regards, the copy of judgment and decree passed in the previously instituted suit, again there is no pleadings in the plaint that the same pertains to the suit land or the previously instituted suit had any nexus with the present litigation. It is well settled that evidence beyond the pleadings should not be permitted to be produced. Above all, certified copy of judgment and decree can otherwise also be produced/cited in the Court during the course of arguments." 12. Applying the law, as discussed hereinabove to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that the learned trial Court has committed no illegality in passing the order and the same is as per law and needs no interference. Accordingly, the present petition, which is devoid of merits, deserves dismissal and is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stands dismissed. Parties to appear before the learned Court below on 28.11.2019.