Rajesh Kumar & Another vs State Bank Of India on 5 December, 2019

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Rajesh Kumar & Another vs State Bank Of India on 5 December, 2019

Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

                                            CMPMO No.853 of 2019




                                                                          .

                                            Decided on: 05.12.2019

    Rajesh Kumar & another                                            ....Petitioners.





                    Versus
    State Bank of India                                               ...Respondent.
    Coram





    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
    Whether approved for reporting?1 No
    For the petitioners  : Sanjay Dutt Vasudeva, Advocate.

    For the respondent                :     None.

    Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

CMP No.14196 of 2019 Having heard learned counsel for the applicants, this application is allowed, as prayed for and delay in refiling the petition is condoned.

CMPMO No.853 of 2019 By way of this petition, petitioners have challenged the order passed by the learned trial Court, vide which an 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2019 20:26:26 :::HCHP 2

application filed under Order 7, Rule 14 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been dismissed by the learned trial Court.

2. It appears that after the judgment was reserved by the learned trial Court in the suit, which was pending before it, an application was filed by the present petitioners under Order 7, Rule 14 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure to place certain document on record.

3. By way of the impugned order, this application has been dismissed by the learned trial Court inter alia on the ground that a party cannot be permitted to move such like applications, at any stage it may like. Learned trial Court further held that plaintiff was given fair opportunity to put forth its case during the course of trial and plaintiff could have produced on record the documents which it intended to place by way of the application in issue, which was not done.

It further held that reasons mentioned in the application also did not inspire confidence.

::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2019 20:26:26 :::HCHP 3

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have also gone through the impugned order as well as .

other documents appended with the petition.

5. In my considered view, there is no infirmity with the order which has been passed by the learned trial Court. It is not the case of the present petitioners that the documents which were intended to be placed on record vide application under Order 7, Rule 14 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure came into existence only after the judgment was reserved in the civil suit. This demonstrates that the petitioners did not act diligently before the learned trial Court and in fact were trying to fill up the lacunae.

6. The provisions of Order 7, Rule 14 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be permitted to be abused by a litigant to be fill up lacunae as that is not intent of the said statutory provision.

7. This Court concurs with the findings returned by the learned trial Court that though procedural law is the hand ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2019 20:26:26 :::HCHP 4 maiden of justice, however, the procedure cannot be permitted to be manipulated by a party to the prejudice of other.

8. Accordingly, as this Court does not finds any merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed so also, pending miscellaneous applications, if any. Interim order, if any, stands vacated .

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge December 05, 2019 (Rishi) ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2019 20:26:26 :::HCHP

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Himachal Pradesh High Court