Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 347 (MP)

Indore Municipal Corporation v. S. B. Electricals

2019-04-29

PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA

body2019
ORDER 1. Heard finally with consent. 2. By this miscellaneous petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the defendant has challenged order of the trial Court dated 3.11.2018 allowing the respondent/plaintiff’s application under Order 7 rule 14 read with section 151 of the CPC and taking the documents on record. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the trial Court has committed an error in allowing the application without appreciating that the necessary ingredients of Order 7 rule 14 of the CPC are not satisfied and no pleadings in regard to these documents exists. 4. As against this, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that under Order 7 rule 14(3) of the CPC plaintiff can produce the additional document with the leave of the Court at the subsequent stage. In the present case the impugned order of the trial Court is a well reasoned order, wherein the trial Court has noted that the photocopies of some of the documents are already filed by the plaintiff earlier and by this application the plaintiff wanted to place on record original/certified copies of those documents. The other documents relate to the registration certificate of the municipal corporation, ordersheet, note-sheet etc. of the municipal corporation, orders passed in writ petition, documents relating to the payment of bills, bill account of work order etc. The trial Court has noted that these documents are relevant documents for just and proper disposal of the suit, hence application has been allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,00/-. The record further reflects that the trial has not yet commenced. The Supreme Court in the matter of Chakreshwari Construction Private Limited v. Manoharlal reported in 2017(5) SCC 212 has held that such an application should be allowed when a case is made out for seeking indulgence. Similarly in the matter of Kapil Kumar Sharma v. Lalit Kumar Sharma and another reported in 2013(14) SCC 612 in a case where the cross-examination had not commenced, the similar application was allowed by observing that there was no reason to deny the permission. Similarly in the matter of Kapil Kumar Sharma v. Lalit Kumar Sharma and another reported in 2013(14) SCC 612 in a case where the cross-examination had not commenced, the similar application was allowed by observing that there was no reason to deny the permission. Similarly this Court in the matter of Mahavir Prasad Jain v. Shambhoo Kuchabandiya reported in 2005(1) MPWN 177 has held that the merits of documents are not to be considered at this stage and the applicant will be allowed to advance cause of justice. The Supreme Court in the matter of N.C. Bansal v. Uttar Pratesh Financial Corporation and another by judgment dated 25.1.2018 passed in Civil Appeal No. 882/2018 [Published in 2018 (1) MPWN 87 ], while allowing the application under Order 7 rule 14 of the CPC along with the application for amendment has observed as under : “19. So far as the filing of documents is concerned, this application too should have been allowed on the same grounds on which we have allowed the amendment application. In other words, when the suit is still at its initial stage and the trial is yet to begin and when the documents filed are alleged to be that of the respondents themselves having obtained through RTI, there is no reason why the appellant(plaintiff) be not allowed to file them.” 6. So far as the judgment in the matter of Church of Christ Charitable Trust and Educational Charitable Society v. Ponniamman Educational Trust, reported in (2012)8 SCC 706 , relied upon by counsel for the petitioner is concerned, the observation in the said judgment are in respect of necessity of filing documents along with the plaint on which the cause of action is based but the documents which the respondent is seeking to file in the present case are not of such a nature. Similarly he is also not entitled to the benefit of the judgment in the matter of Idris v. Mubarik dated 21.1.2014 passed in WP No.19499/2012 because in the present case the trial Court has rightly exercised the discretion in granting the leave under sub-rule (3) of Order 7 rule 14 of the CPC. Hence I am of the opinion that the impugned order of the trial Court does not suffer from any patent illegality. 7. Hence I am of the opinion that the impugned order of the trial Court does not suffer from any patent illegality. 7. Even otherwise, the scope of interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India is limited. The Supreme Court in the matter of Shalini Shyam Shetty and another v. Rajendra Shankar Patil, reported in (2010)8 SCC 329 has held that High Court in exercise of its power of superintendence cannot interfere to correct mere errors of law or fact or just because another view than the one taken by the tribunals or Courts subordinate to it, is a possible view. The High Court can exercise this power when there has been a patent perversity in the orders of tribunals and Courts subordinate to it or where there has been a gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted. 8. Having regard to the aforesaid, no case for interference in the impugned order is made out. The miscellaneous petition is accordingly dismissed.