Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Smt. Monika vs Surendra Bhansali & Ors on 2 September, 2016
Author: Sangeet Lodha
Bench: Sangeet Lodha
CIVIL WRIT (CW) No.5000 of 2008
SMT. MONIKA
VS.
SURENDRA BHANSALI & ORS.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR
RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
-----------------------------------------------------------
CIVIL WRIT (CW) No.5000 of 2008 PETITIONER Smt. Monika w/o Shri Shailendra Bokadiya, resident of 19-20, Tilak Nagar, Sector No.3, Hiran Magri, Udaipur Versus RESPONDENTS:
1. Surendra Bhansali s/o Shri Sujan Singh Bhansali, Resident of 67, Subhash Nagar, Udaipur (Raj.)
2. LR's of Sujan Singh Bhansali s/o Late Shri Roshan Lal Ji Bhansali:-
2/1. Surendra Bhansali s/o Shri Sujan Singh Bhansali, Resident of 67, Subhash Nagar, Udaipur (Raj.) (Already on record as respondent no.:1) 2/2. Smt. Vimla Bhandari w/o Shri Vijay Singh, D/o Late Shri Sujan Singh Bhansali, R/p 115, Bhopalpura, Udaipur (Raj.) 2/3. Smt. Saroj Jain w/o Shri Govind Jain, D/o Late Shri Sujan Singh Bhansali, R/o 2, Anand Nagar, Opp. Satyam Shivam Sundram, Tekri Madri Road, Udaipur (Raj.)
3. Family Court, Udaipur.
Date of Order: 2.9.2016 CIVIL WRIT (CW) No.5000 of 2008 SMT. MONIKA VS.
SURENDRA BHANSALI & ORS.
2 HON'BLE MR.SANGEET LODHA,J.
Mr.R.K.Thanvi, Senior Advocate with Mr.Narendra Thanvi, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Sandeep Saruparia, for the Respondents.
1. This writ petition is directed against order dated 4.7.08 passed by Family Court, Udaipur in Case No.30/06, whereby an application preferred by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 14 (3) read with Section 151 of CPC, stands rejected.
2. In nutshell, the relevant facts are that the petitioner filed an application under Section 20(3) of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (for short "the Act"), against his father and grand father (since deceased) claiming maintenance a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- towards the expenditure incurred for her marriage. The application is being contested by the respondents by filing a reply thereto. The issues were framed on 22.9.07 and the petitioner's evidence stood concluded on 17.3.08 and the matter was posted for respondents' evidence.
CIVIL WRIT (CW) No.5000 of 2008 SMT. MONIKA VS.
SURENDRA BHANSALI & ORS.
3
3. At this stage, the petitioner preferred an application under Order VII Rule 14 (3) CPC for taking certain documents on record, stating that the documents no.1 to 17 sought to be produced are bills of the articles purchased for the marriage after filing of the application seeking maintenance, the documents no.18 to 23 relate to the income of the respondents and the document no.24 contains the details of expenditure incurred towards stri dhan at the time of marriage. It was averred in the application that all the documents referred to have come into possession of the petitioner herein, after filing of the application for maintenance. It was further averred that there exists sufficient and justified cause for not producing the documents earlier and therefore, the same deserve to be taken on record.
4. The application was contested by the respondents by filing a reply thereto, taking the CIVIL WRIT (CW) No.5000 of 2008 SMT. MONIKA VS.
SURENDRA BHANSALI & ORS.
4 stand that the documents sought to be produced at belated stage without there being any satisfactory explanation, cannot be permitted to be taken on record. The respondents contended that the documents which have been created by the applicant after filing of the application are not even relevant to the controversy involved.
5. After due consideration, the application stands rejected by the Family Court by the order impugned. Hence, this petition.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that to substantiate the claim of the petitioner for maintenance, it is absolutely necessary that the documents sought to be produced are taken on record. Learned counsel submitted that the Family Court has seriously erred in observing that the application has been made by the petitioner for delaying the proceedings. Learned counsel submitted that if the documents sought to be produced are CIVIL WRIT (CW) No.5000 of 2008 SMT. MONIKA VS.
SURENDRA BHANSALI & ORS.
5 relevant for effective and complete adjudication of the dispute, the same cannot be refused to be taken on record on the ground that the same are produced at belated stage. Learned counsel urged that for the delay caused, the respondents can be compensated by awarding cost. In support of the contention, learned counsel has relied upon the decisions of this court in the matters of "Sadar Mohd. vs. Gram Panchayat Bansi & Ors.", 2013(1) Civil Court Cases 386 (Rajasthan) and "Bhojraj vs. Jagdish Prasad Ojha & Anr.", 2013(4) Civil Court Cases 249 (Rajasthan).
7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has supported the order impugned passed by the Family Court.
8. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record.
9. As per provisions of Order VII Rule 14(3) of CPC, a document which ought to have been CIVIL WRIT (CW) No.5000 of 2008 SMT. MONIKA VS.
SURENDRA BHANSALI & ORS.
6 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 be without the leave of the court be received in the evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit. Thus, the document produced by the plaintiff even after filing of the plaint, can be received in evidence at any stage of the proceedings with the leave of the court.
10. It is settled law that the rules of procedure are hand maiden of justice and the cause of justice cannot be permitted to be defeated on account of failure to observe the procedure laid down strictly. But then, the provision requiring filing of the documents so also the list of the documents on which the plaintiff relies upon but the same are not in his possession, at the time of filing of plaint, has been incorporated by the legislature in its wisdom to avoid the unnecessary delay in adjudication and for CIVIL WRIT (CW) No.5000 of 2008 SMT. MONIKA VS.
SURENDRA BHANSALI & ORS.
7 expeditious disposal of the lis between the parties. Therefore, the plaintiff who wants to produce the documents at the later stage, invoking the provisions of Order VII Rule 14(3) must satisfy the court that the documents sought to be produced could not be produced at the appropriate stage on account of the fact that the same were not in his possession or he had no knowledge about the existence of the same. That apart, he must prima facie satisfy the court as to the relevancy of the documents sought to be produced at the belated stage, for adjudication of the dispute involved between the parties. Suffice it to say that the plaintiff cannot claim filing of the documents at belated stage as a matter of right without furnishing the satisfactory explanation regarding non production thereof at the appropriate stage.
11. It is to be noticed that in the instance case, the petitioner has claimed that the documents sought to CIVIL WRIT (CW) No.5000 of 2008 SMT. MONIKA VS.
SURENDRA BHANSALI & ORS.
8 be produced have come into existence after filing of the application seeking maintenance. But then, it has come on record that some of the documents sought to be produced were in existence even at the time of filing of the said application and the remaining documents had also come into existence before the framing of the issues. There is no explanation set out in the application filed under Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC, as to why the documents, if relevant for complete and effectual adjudication of the dispute, were not filed by the petitioner at the appropriate stage before recording of her evidence. A perusal of the application reveals that the relevancy of the documents and its necessity for the adjudication of the lis between the parties, has also not been disclosed. Suffice it to say that in absence of any plausible explanation regarding the belated production of the documents and relevancy of the documents to the controversy involved, the learned CIVIL WRIT (CW) No.5000 of 2008 SMT. MONIKA VS.
SURENDRA BHANSALI & ORS.
9 Family Court has committed no error in rejecting the application for the reasons recorded.
12. At this stage, it would be appropriate to refer to the decisions of this Court relied upon by the counsel appearing for the petitioner.
13. In Sadar Mohd.'s case (supra), a coordinate Bench of this court having arrived at the conclusion that there was no satisfactory reason shown by the plaintiff to produce the documents at the earlier stage before the commencement of the evidence and framing of the issues, held that the order passed by the court impugned in the writ petition, does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. The court strongly deprecated the practice or production of documents at the belated stage and observed that such practice deserves to be stopped. However, taking into consideration, the nature of the documents and the statement made by the counsel appearing for the petitioner to the effect that the CIVIL WRIT (CW) No.5000 of 2008 SMT. MONIKA VS.
SURENDRA BHANSALI & ORS.
10 petitioner shall not lead any further evidence except for getting the documents exhibited, the Court permitted the document to be taken on payment of costs. In the considered opinion of this court, while explaining the position of law as aforesaid, the permission granted to the petitioner therein to produce the documents taking into consideration the facts of the particular case, in no manner forms a binding precedent to be followed in all the cases.
14. Coming to the decision of this court in Bhojraj's case (supra), in the said case, a coordinate Bench of this Court declined to interfere with the order passed by the trial court considering the fact that the documents sought to be produced on record by the plaintiff were necessary for adjudication of the lis involved.
15. Keeping in view the conclusion arrived at as aforesaid by this court that there is no plausible explanation for not producing the documents at the CIVIL WRIT (CW) No.5000 of 2008 SMT. MONIKA VS.
SURENDRA BHANSALI & ORS.
11 appropriate stage and that apart, the relevancy of the documents has also not been disclosed in the application filed, the decision of this court in Bhojraj's case (supra), also does not help the petitioner in any manner.
16. In view of the discussion above, in the considered opinion of this court, the order impugned passed by the Family Court, Udaipur, does not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
17. In the result, the writ petition fails, it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
(SANGEET LODHA),J.
Aditya/