Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 459 (MP)

Emerald Industries v. Omprakash Badretiya

2019-06-28

VISHAL MISHRA

body2019
ORDER 1. With the consent of parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. The present misc. petition has been filed being aggrieved by the order dated 16.1.2019 by which the learned trial Court has rejected the application under Order 7 rule 14 (3) read with section 151 of CPC by which the application seeking relief to produce on record the report dated 21.7.2017 lodged at Police Station Bijoli. 3. The contention of the petitioners is that the aforesaid application has been rejected only on the ground of delay and further it is not mentioned that who has received the said document. There is no seal appended to the aforesaid document. The petitioners have relied upon the judgment passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Bada Bodaiah and Anr. v. Bada Lingaswamy and ors. reported in 2003 A I H C 1285, wherein it is held that Order 13 rule 1 and Order 7 rule 14(3) of CPC have to be read together harmoniously. Reading together would lead to the conclusion that if the plaintiff applies for permission or leave to produce documents to be received in evidence at the hearing of the suit which documents were not produced on or before the settlement of the issues or at the time of production of the plaint, the Court has to exercise sound discretion having regard to the facts and circumstances of the each case. Mere non-mention of the documents in the plaint or subsequent incidental or supplemental proceedings in the suit does not in any manner affect the power of the Court to grant leave to produce the documents at the subsequent stage. Non-mentioning of the documents sought to be produced at the subsequent stage is a curable defect. He has prayed for setting aside of the impugned order with further direction that the application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order 7 rule 14 (3) of CPC read with section 151 be allowed and the documents be permitted to be taken on record. 4. On the other hand, the respondent/defendant giving his appearance in the matter has opposed the production of document and has contended that the aforesaid document was very well in the knowledge of the plaintiffs but despite of the same he has chosen not to file the aforesaid document before the Court within a reasonable time. 4. On the other hand, the respondent/defendant giving his appearance in the matter has opposed the production of document and has contended that the aforesaid document was very well in the knowledge of the plaintiffs but despite of the same he has chosen not to file the aforesaid document before the Court within a reasonable time. There is no proper explanation for the delay being caused by the plaintiffs for producing the document. In such circumstances, the order passed by the trial Court is justified and does not call for any interference in the present misc. petition. Accordingly, he has prayed for dismissal of the misc. petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. For deciding the issue Order 7 rule 14 (3) is to be taken into consideration which reads as under : Rule "[14. Production of document on which plaintiff sues or relies.- (1) Where a plaintiff sues upon a document or relies upon 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 by him and shall, at the same time deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the plaint. (2) 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. [(3) 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) Nothing in this rule shall apply to document produced for the cross examination of the plaintiff's witnesses, or, handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.]" 7. It is seen that the document which the plaintiffs want to bring on record is dated 21.7.2017 and the application is being filed for bringing the aforesaid document on record is dated 6.9.2018. 8. It is seen that the document which the plaintiffs want to bring on record is dated 21.7.2017 and the application is being filed for bringing the aforesaid document on record is dated 6.9.2018. 8. From the perusal of the application dated 6.9.2018, it can be seen that the only reason mentioned for taking the document on record is that the aforesaid document is a matter document to settle the matter in dispute. There is no reason mentioned in the application regarding the fact that what prevented the plaintiffs from filing the aforesaid document which is almost more than one year old document. The aforesaid analogy was taken into consideration in the case of Arvind v. Smt. Pushpa @ Devi, reported in [ 2016 (II) MPWN 88 ]. In the aforesaid case the Hon'ble High Court has dismissed the writ petition holding as under : "3. Sub-rule (3) of rule 14 of Order 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity 'CPC' mandates "(3) 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". The leave of the Court is not an empty formality and unless cogent explanation is tendered not only as to its necessity for effective decision but also the reasons which prevented the party from not filing it though the case has processed to an advance stage. The impugned order when adjudged on the principles enunciated in this rule, the same cannot be faulted with." 9. In the present case also the aforesaid ratio held by the Hon'ble Court is applicable. Therefore, the reasons assigned by the learned trial Court while dismissing the application are appears to be justified and in these circumstances no interference is called for in the present misc. petition. 10. This present misc. petition is accordingly dismissed. The order dated 16.1.2019 is upheld. No order as to cost.