Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 329 (MP)

Brajesh Kumar, S/o. Santosh Kumar Jaiswal v. Santosh Kumar, S/o. Shyamlalji

2022-02-26

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

body2022
ORDER : The petitioner-plaintiff is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 25.06.2019 (Annexure P/1), passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Burhanpur, RCSA No.2201/2014, whereby, an application of the petitioner-plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of CPC to take the gift deed on record has been rejected. 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner-plaintiff has filed the suit claiming the decree of permanent injunction, partition and separation in relation to the suit property as mentioned in the plaint. According to the petitioner, his grandfather, namely, Shyamlal was in joint Hindu family alongwith defendants No.1 to 14. The grandfather of the petitioner-plaintiff passed away on 02.08.1985 and his wife Tara Devi passed away on 26.02.1986. Since, no partition had taken place and various properties were purchased from the fund of the joint family, therefore, the suit in question was instituted. The issues were framed on 20.06.2018. The petitioner filed affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of the CPC and the evidence was recorded. The petitioner submits that during the pendency of the civil suit, he got hold of the gift deed dated 28.09.2012 on 24.06.2019 which shows that certain properties such as Flat No.D-31 and 32 was gifted out of the joint family property. Hence, the petitioner filed an application under Order7 Rule 14(3) of the CPC before the trial Court to take the said gift deed on record. Learned trial Court vide order dated 25.06.2019 has rejected the application under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC and hence, the petitioner is in the instant petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is without any cogent reason. The gift deed in question is necessary to be considered for the proper and complete adjudication of the controversy and the learned trial Court has erred in rejecting the said application merely on the ground that the evidence of the plaintiff is closed. By placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Chakreshwari Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Manoharlal, (2017) 5 SCC 212 and decision of this court in the matter Sudheer Jain and Others Vs. By placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Chakreshwari Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Manoharlal, (2017) 5 SCC 212 and decision of this court in the matter Sudheer Jain and Others Vs. Sunil Modi and Others, (2019) 3 MPLJ 312 , he contends that law permits the parties to file additional evidence on any stage of the trial with the leave of the Court provided that the case is made out to seek such indulgence and, in the present case, the petitioner has been able to explain the reasons for delay, therefore, interference is sought for. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the petition and he submits that the order passed by the learned trial Court is absolutely in accordance with law. There is no error which would cause miscarriage of justice and hence, the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have perused the order passed by the trial Court which records the reason for rejecting of application under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC. The reason assigned by the trial Court is that the suit is pending since long. The second reason is that after giving repeated opportunities to the petitioner-plaintiff the evidence was closed. The third reason is that the petitioner-plaintiff has not explained as to why the certified copy of the said gift deed was not earlier applied. The fourth reason is that the gift deed sought to be produced has not been shown to be related to the disputed property. 6. The third reason is that the petitioner-plaintiff has not explained as to why the certified copy of the said gift deed was not earlier applied. The fourth reason is that the gift deed sought to be produced has not been shown to be related to the disputed property. 6. I have perused the application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of the CPC which reads as under : ^^1- ;g fd oknh us ;g okn izfroknhx.k ds fo:) izLrqr fd;k gS@mDr okn ds pyus ds e/; bl izfroknh dks ;g tkudkjh feyh fd la;qDr ifjokj dh laifRr bUnkSj fodkl izkf/kdj.k ;kstuk ds varxZr Hkh gS ftlds laca/k esa tkudkjh fudkys tkus ds i'pkr mDRk la;qDr ifjokj dk laifRr esa bUnkSj fodkl izkf/kdj.k dh ;kstuk Øekad 31 esa ysV uacj Mh 31 larks"k dqekj ,oe~ ysV uacj 32 Tkks oknh dh cqvk ds uke ls Fks mDr nksuksa ysV es ls esu ysV larks"k dqekj us nkui= ds }kjk o:.k dqekj dks rFkk 'kdqaryk ckbZ us nkui= ds }kjk oknh dh pkph fo/;knsoh dks nku ns fn;k gS mDr nksuksa nkui= dh izekf.kr izfrfyfi izkIr djys[k lwph ds lkFk esa vfHkys[k ij izLrqr dj jgk gSA ;g izekf.kr izfrfyfi oknh dks fn0 24@6@19 dk gh izkIr gqbZ gSA bl dkj.k og vfoyac vfHkys[k ij izLrqr dj jgk gSA dkj.k lnHkkfod gSA mDr nLrkost izdj.k ds U;kf;d fujkdj.k gsrq vko';d o mfpr gSA vr,o izkFkZuk gS fd vkosnui= Lohdkj fd;s tkdj mDr nLrkost vfHkys[k ij fy;s tkus ds vkns'k iznku djus dh Ñik djsaA** 7. The perusal of the paragraph 33 of the plaint also shows that the petitioner-plaintiff claimed 1/46th share of the property mentioned in para 3 of the plaint. Para-3 of the plaint does not include the subject matter of the gift deed sought to be produced i.e. Flat No.D-31 and 32. The scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited. Even a wrong/illegal order need not be interfered with on mere asking or on a drop of hat {See Shalini Shy am Shetty and another vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil, (2010) 8 SCC 329 }. 8. In view of the aforesaid, it is found that learned trial Court has not committed any palpable error so far to call for any interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. Hence, the instant petition is dismissed.