Madhya Pradesh High Court
Punit Agrawal vs Murarilal on 7 January, 2020
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh
MP 1686 of 2019
[ Punit Agrawal vs. Murarilal and Others]
Gwalior, dtd. 07/01/2020
Shri DD Bansal, Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Vikas Singhal, Counsel for the respondent No.4.
This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the order dated 11/03/2019 passed by 16th Civil Judge, Class-I, Gwalior in Case No.18-A of 2003.
(2) It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the original plaintiff Kailash Narayan had filed a suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction as well as for declaring the sale deed dated 14/06/2001, as null and void. A declaration was also sought to the effect that the defendant No.1 has no right to recover the rent as against the rights of the plaintiff. A permanent injunction was also sought to the effect that the defendant No.1 be restrained from alienating the suit property as well as from dismantling the same. After framing of issues, the case was fixed for recording of evidence of the plaintiff witnesses and the petitioner plaintiff Punit Agarwal submitted an affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC and the cross- examination of plaintiff Punit Agrawal was not taken at the relevant time. At the aforesaid stage, the plaintiff petitioner filed 2 an application under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) r/w Section 151 of CPC for taking certain documents on record, which were mentioned in the list of documents and according to the petitioner, they are relevant documents to decide the real controversy involved in the case.
(3) The defendant No.4 filed his reply to the application and denied the contention made therein and prayed for dismissal of the application on the ground of delay.
(4) The Trial Court, by the impugned order dated 11th March, 2019, partially rejected the application on the ground that some of the documents are the certified copies of the certified copies and the same are not admissible under the law, therefore, the same cannot be taken on record. However, as no objection was raised by the defendants with regard to documents mentioned at Serial No.5, 6, 9, 10, 11 of the list of documents, therefore, the same were taken on record and the prayer for taking the documents mentioned at Serial No.1, 2, 3, 4, 7 & 8 was rejected. Accordingly, the present petition has been filed on the ground that at the time of consideration of the application under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC, the Trial Court cannot consider the admissibility of the documents and the same can be considered only at the stage when the same are tendered in evidence.
3(5) Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondent No.4 that subsequent to dismissal of the application filed under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC and during pendency of this petition, the petitioner had filed another application under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC and filed same documents after obtaining the certified copies from the original record and the Trial Court by order dated 30/01/2019 has allowed the said application and has taken those documents on record and, therefore, this petition has rendered infructuous.
(6) In reply, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the documents mentioned at Serial No.1, 2, 3 and 4 of list of documents have been taken on record by the Trial Court by order dated 30/01/2019, but the certified copies of the documents mentioned at Serial Nos.7, 8 & 12 of the list of documents dated 14/12/2018 were not filed along with the subsequent application filed under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC, therefore, the petition still survives in respect of the documents mentioned at Serial No. 7 and 8.
(7) The Counsel for the respondent No.4 is not in a position to controvert the said submission. However, by referring to the subsequent application filed under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondent No.4 that, it is specifically mentioned in the said application that all the 4 documents which were filed along with previous application under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC are being filed along with the subsequent application and, therefore, it is submitted that this petition has rendered infructuous.
(8) Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. (9) The undisputed facts are that the list of documents was filed along with previous application under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC and the documents mentioned at Serial Nos.5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 & 11 were taken on record, as no objection was raised by the respondent No.4. However, the prayer for taking the documents on record mentioned at Serial Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 12 was rejected on the ground that they are the certified copies of of certified copies of original documents and the same are not admissible.
(10) Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC reads as under:-
"Order 7- Plaint Rule 14. Production of document on which plaintiff sues or relies.-
(1).......
(2).........
(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."
(11) It is the case of the petitioner that only an affidavit under 5 Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC has been filed and even at the relevant time, none of the plaintiff witness was cross-examined and thus, the application under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC was filed at the earliest stage although after framing of issues. (12) A coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Chandan Singh (Dead) Lrs Kanchan Bai and Others vs. Deewan Singh and Others passed in Writ Petition No.1111/2008 by order dated 25/07/2014, has held as under:-
''8. The denial of prayer for production of documents is justified only when the court can objectively sense oblique motive of the plaintiff to delay the trial. The court can very well impose appropriate cost on erring party instead of outright denial. If this course is adopted then the trial court will have better material to discover the truth which is the ultimate object to be achieved in every trial.
The trial court while rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 14 (3 ) CPC has neither recorded that any prejudice shall visit the defendants if the document sought to be produced by the plaintiff are taken on record, nor any cogent findings have been recorded that the suit is being unnecessarily delayed to the extent that denial of application under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) is unavoidable.
9. The trial in question was at the stage where recording of plaintiff's evidence was yet to commence. Thus, at this early stage there was no justified reason for the court to deny the application under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) CPC.
10. In view of the above, this court is of the considered view that while passing the impugned order, the court below has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) 6 CPC in a proper and justified manner.'' The Supreme Court in the case of K. Mallesh vs. K. Narender and Others reported in (2016) 1 SCC 670 has held as under:-
''2. In our opinion the High Court should not have interfered at the stage when the trial was still in progress. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court without going into the merits of the case. We say that the admissibility, reliability and registrability of the documents shall be considered independently only at the time of hearing of the trial and not prior thereto. All questions with regard to the aforesaid issues shall remain open.'' (13) In the present case, the Court below has not rejected the application under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC on the ground that the same has been filed with oblique motive to delay the trial.
The application has been rejected only on the ground of admissibility of documents. In the considered opinion of this Court, the admissibility of documents can be considered at the time when those documents are tendered in evidence. (14) Accordingly, it is directed that in case, if the documents mentioned in Serial Nos.7, 8 and 12 were not the subject-matter of subsequent application filed under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC, then the Trial Court is directed to take the documents mentioned in Serial Nos.7, 8 and 12 in the list of documents dated 14/12/2018 on record. It is made clear that the direction to take 7 the documents should not be construed as a finding that the same are admissible in evidence. The question of admissibility shall be considered by the trial Court at the time when those documents are tendered in evidence.
(15) With aforesaid observation,this petition is finally disposed of.
(G.S.Ahluwalia) Judge MKB MAHENDRA KUMAR BARIK 2020.01.10 VALSALA VASUDEVAN 2018.10.26 15:14:29 -07'00' 11:31:29 +05'30'