Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bharosa vs Sukka on 11 December, 2014
S.A.123/2013 11.12.2014
Shri S.S. Rajput, Advocate for the appellant. The suit filed by the appellant for possession was dismissed by the trial Court because the appellant failed to file documents and prove his right to have the possession of the property.
It is submitted that the appellant filed the document with an application under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC but the said application it is stated was not considered in the event.
The provision contained under Order 13 Rule 1 of CPC requires filing of document on which the case of the appellant is based and which document are in power at the time on or before the date of settlement of issues which has not been done by the appellant.
Order 13 Rule 1 provided as under:-
"1. Original documents to be produced at or before the settlement of issues.-
(1) The parties or their pleader shall produce on or before the settlement of issues, all the documentary evidence in original where the copies thereof have been filed alongwith plaint or written statement. (2) The Court shall received the documents so produced:
Provided that they are accompanied by an accurate list thereof prepared in such form as the High Court directs.
(3) Nothing in sub-rule (1) shall apply to documents-
(a) produced for the cross-examination of the witnesses of the other party; or S.A.123/2013
(b) handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.
The judgment of the lower Court has been upheld by the first Appellate Court.
The counsel for the appellant submits that his application under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC ought to have been considered but the same was dismissed on the ground of delay.
In view of the above said by me filing of such application after settlement of issues was not maintainable and therefore it was rightly dismissed. No grounds to interfere in the judgment passed by both the Courts below.
Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.
(M.C. Garg) Judge van