Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 23 (MP)

Lakhan Singh v. Shyam Singh

2020-01-07

VANDANA KASREKAR

body2020
ORDER 1. The petitioners have filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 26.6.2019 (Annexure-P-1) whereby the application filed under Order 7 rule 14 of CPC by the plaintiff / respondent No. 1, was allowed. 2. The petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased Ratanbai, i.e. original defendant No. 3. Respondents No. 1 to 4 filed a civil suit for declaration, permanent injunction for agricultural lands mentioned in para 4 of the plaint, situated at village Hatod and Village Kesharpur Nipaniya. It was allged in the plaint that respondent No. 1 is the legal owner of the said lands described in Schedule-A of the plaint and all the plaintiffs are the joint owners of the lands described in Schedule-B and they are in possession. It was further stated in the plaint that the plaintiffs have purchased the said lands by a registered sale deed, therefore, they are entitled for declaration of their title and injunction against the defendants / respondents. Upon the death of Ratanbai, some of her legal representatives were brought on record, but the present petitioners filed an application for substitution of their name in place of deceased Ratanbai on the strength of a WILL executed in their favour. Learned lower Court then framed the issues and the matter was fixed for evidence. 3. In the meanwhile, the petitioners have filed Writ Petition No. 2746/2017 before this Court challenging the order , by which their right to lead evidence was closed and this Court vide roder dated 27.10.2017 permitted the petitioners to lead their evidence. Thereafter, the petitioners filed an application under Order 6 rule 17 of CPC for incorporating counter claim by way of amendment in their written statements, which was dismissed by the lower Court vide order dated 1.2.2018. Against the said order, MP No. 3228/2018 was filed by the petitioners before this Court and it was allowed by the order dated 3.4.2019 and the petitioners were permitted to incorporate the counter claim by way of amendment. On 22.2.2018, the respondents/plaintiffs filed an application under Order 6 rule 17 of CPC for incorporating relief of possession by way of amendment in their plaint. Learned Lower Court, by order dated 29.8.2018 dismissed the said application. On 22.2.2018, the respondents/plaintiffs filed an application under Order 6 rule 17 of CPC for incorporating relief of possession by way of amendment in their plaint. Learned Lower Court, by order dated 29.8.2018 dismissed the said application. Against the said order, M.P. No. 5979/2018 was filed before this Court and the same was allowed vide order dated 31.1.2019 and a liberty was granted to the defendants to incorporate consequential amendment. In the meanwhile, the case was pending before the lower Court at the stage of final arguments and respondent / plaintiffs filed an application under Order 7 rule 14 of CPC on 10.1.2019 seeking production of some additional documents. The petitioners filed detailed reply to the aforesaid application praying for dismissal of the application. After hearing the arguments of both the parties, learned Lower Court dismissed the application filed by the respondent/plaintiff vide order dated 11.1.2019. In compliance of the aforesaid orders passed by this Court, amendment was incorporated by the parties to the lis before the lower Court. At this stage, an application under Order 7 rule 14 of CPC was filed by the respondent / plaintiffs seeking production of additional documents along with plaint in view of the amendments incorporated by them. The documents which is proposed to be brought on record, were the same which were produced earlier before the lower Court and rejected to be taken on record by order dated 11.1.2019. Detailed reply was filed by the respondent to this application, however, after hearing all the parties, the application filed by the plaintiffs was allowed by the lower Court on 26.6.2019. Being aggrieved by that order, the petitioners have filed the present petition before this Court. 4. Learned Sr. counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the Court below has erred in allowing the applications preferred by the respondent under Order 7 rule 14 of CPC He submits that earlier, the same application has been filed by respondent before this Court, which was rejected, therefore, the subsequent application on the same ground is not maintainable. This aspect of the matter has not been considered by the Court below. He further submits that the Court below has failed to consider that the documents which are sought to be taken on record for filling up the lacuna. This aspect of the matter has not been considered by the Court below. He further submits that the Court below has failed to consider that the documents which are sought to be taken on record for filling up the lacuna. Now, since the evidence of both the parties has been concluded, therefore, at this stage, lower Court should not have allowed the application. The alleged documents have been filed at belated stage and no reasons have been assigned by the plaintiffs / respondents in filing those documents at this stage. For the said purpose, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments passed by Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Barkat Ali and another v. Badrinarain (dead) by LRs reported in (2008) 4 SCC 615 and Ajay Mohan and others v. H.N. Rai and others, reported in (2008)4 SCC 507. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supports the order passed by the Court below stating that the order by which earlier application was dismissed, does not amount to res-judicata and the documents which is sought to be produced by the plaintiff, are necessary for the just and proper decision of the ase. For the said purpose, he has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Kapil Kumar Sharma v. Lalit Kumar Sharma and another, reported in (2013) 14 SCC 612 as well as the judgment delivered by Jaipur Bench, Rajasthan in the case of Madan Lal Khuteta v. Badri Narayan, reported in AIR 1988 RAJASTHAN 61. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 7. In the present case, the plaintiffs have filed a civil suit for declaration of title as well as permanent injunction. During pendency of the said civil suit, the respondent/s filed an application under Order 7 rule 14 of CPC for production of the certain documents. This application was dismissed by the Court below on 11.1.2019, thereafter, trial was proceeded and it has reached at the stage of final arguments. At this stage, the respondent/s again filed an application under Order 7 rule 14 of CPC for production of the same documents, however at this time, the Court below has allowed the application. Being aggrieved by that order, present petition has been filed. 8. At this stage, the respondent/s again filed an application under Order 7 rule 14 of CPC for production of the same documents, however at this time, the Court below has allowed the application. Being aggrieved by that order, present petition has been filed. 8. The Court below has allowed the application on the ground that earlier amendment application filed by the plaintiff/s was dismissed by the Court below, against which, Miscellaneous Petition was filed before this Court and the same was allowed, therefore, in view of the order passed by this Court, the trial was reopened, therefore, the plaintiffs can be allowed to produce those documents, however, the Court below while passing the order has not taken into consideration that the earlier application filed by the respondent/s under Order 7 rule 14 of CPC was dismissed by the Court below and it was never challenged by the respondent / plaintiff before any higher forum, thus it has attained finality. Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Ajay Mohan and others (supra) has held that section 11 shall applicable to different stages of same proceedings. Similar view has been taken by Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Barkat Ali and another (supra) and therefore, the arguments of learned counsel for the respondent that the principle of res-judicata does not apply to the order passed in application, is not acceptable. In the judgments cited by learned counsel for the respondent/s, evidence only began, but in the preset case, evidence of the parties have been closed and therefore, at this stage, the Court should not have allowed the application for reopening the trial. In light of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 26.6.2019 (Annexure-P-1) is hereby set aside. Present petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly. .....................