Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 247 (HP)

Rajeev Bansal v. Vishwanath Sharma

2025-03-03

SATYEN VAIDYA

body2025
JUDGMENT : Satyen Vaidya, J. By way of instant petition, petitioner has assailed order dated 04.07.2024, passed by learned Civil Judge, Nahan, District Sirmour, H.P., in CMA No. 299 of 2024 in Civil Suit No. 79 of 2019, whereby the application filed by respondent herein under Order 7 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure , seeking permission to produce documents has been allowed. 2. Respondent herein is the plaintiff before the learned Trial Court. A suit has been filed by the plaintiff for permanent prohibitory injunction against defendant (petitioner herein,) seeking to restrain him from blocking or hindering the path or dismantling the same, as allegedly, comprised in Khata Khatauni No. 27/49, Khasra No. 298 and Khata Khatauni No. 22/11 min/46, Khasra No. 108 in village Bhalgoan, Tehsil Nahan, District Sirmour, H.P. It is alleged by the plaintiff that the path in question is being used by him and other residents of the village for reaching a water source and defendant intended to obstruct the said passage. 3. The suit is being contested by the defendant by denying the allegations. 4. Issues were framed by learned Trial Court on 06.03.2020 and the plaintiff was afforded opportunity to lead evidence in the first instance. Plaintiff filed an application under Order 7 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure , on 14.05.2024, seeking liberty to produce on record certified copies of the report of Tehsildar Nahan alongwith statements of the parties recorded in proceedings initiated on the complaint of plaintiff against defendant with respect to the same path, which is the subject matter of the suit before learned Trial Court. Plaintiff averred that the documents were vital for just decision of the case and he had already summoned a witness from the office of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nahan, to prove the documents sought to be placed on record, but since the documents were not on record at that stage, plaintiff could not examine the witness and was constrained to file the instant application. 5. Defendant contested the application by alleging that the action of plaintiff in filing the application belatedly was not bonafide. The relevance of the document sought to be produced was also challenged. 6. 5. Defendant contested the application by alleging that the action of plaintiff in filing the application belatedly was not bonafide. The relevance of the document sought to be produced was also challenged. 6. Learned Trial Court vide impugned order recorded that the reports sought to be placed on record by plaintiff was regarding the obstruction of water source in village Bhalgoan, therefore, the said report is relevant to the controversy in the suit. The document sought to be placed on record by plaintiff has also been found necessary by learned Trial Court for proper and complete adjudication of the dispute. It also weighed with learned Trial Court that no prejudice will be caused to the defendant by production of document as it was subject to formal proof. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case carefully. 8. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff before learned Trial Court in the year 2019 with the allegation that right of passage of plaintiff is being obstructed by defendant. Defendant has denied the allegations in the plaint. The issues have been framed and one of the issues is whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of injunction, as prayed. 9. The documents sought to be placed on record by plaintiff by way of an application under Order 7 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure , are the copies of reports prepared by Tehsildar and Field Kanungo, Nahan, respectively, on the complaint filed by plaintiff and others before Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nahan, with the same allegations as raised in the suit. In addition, the copies of statements of complainant and defendant recorded by the Field Kanungo in the proceedings initiated on complaint of plaintiff and others are also sought to be placed on record. 10. Perusal of aforesaid documents reveal that neither the Field Kanungo nor the Tehsildar has given any finding on the merits of the dispute between the parties. Rather, the factum of pendency of Civil Suit has been recorded and it has been stated that the dispute between the parties can be resolved by a dialogue between the parties. Thus, the said documents could not be considered to be relevant in any manner. Rather, the factum of pendency of Civil Suit has been recorded and it has been stated that the dispute between the parties can be resolved by a dialogue between the parties. Thus, the said documents could not be considered to be relevant in any manner. Even otherwise the proceedings undertaken by an executive authority during the pendency of Civil Suit on the same subject matter as was involved in the suit was also questionable. 11. Learned Trial Court has clearly erred in holding that the documents sought to be produced were necessary for proper and complete adjudication of the dispute. The finding to above effect is without any reasoning. 12. Merely because, the documents were subject to formal proof, the application was not to be allowed as the purpose of right of the parties to produce additional documents during the pendency of the suit is not only to burden the records. 13. Even the statements of the parties to the proceedings in complaint case before Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nahan, could also not be said to be relevant firstly, for the reasons that the plaintiff has to prove his allegations before Civil Court independently and secondly, from the statement of the defendant recorded in complaint proceedings, no admission as to the allegations levelled by plaintiff has been made out. 14. In result, I am of the considered view that learned Trial Court has failed to exercise jurisdiction in accordance with the law. No purpose will be served by sustaining the impugned order. 15. In result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 04.07.2024, passed by learned Civil Judge, Nahan, District Sirmour, H.P., in CMA No. 299 of 2024 in Civil Suit No. 79 of 2019, is set aside. 16. However, it is made clear that the observations made hereinabove shall have no bearings on the merit of the case and shall be construed for the disposal of the present petition only. 17. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.