Chattisgarh High Court
Harish Kumar Sonkar vs Santosh Sonkar on 3 November, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WP227 No. 595 of 2022
• Harish Kumar Sonkar S/o Lt. Patalu @ Budhram Sonkar Aged About
32 Years R/o Near Sumit Sale, Ganesh Nagar, Rajpura, Raipur,
District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.............(Defendant No.1)
---- Applicant
Versus
1. Santosh Sonkar S/o Lt. Shri Patalu Sonkar Aged About 32 Years R/o
Adrsh Chowk, Khushalpur, Raipur, District- Raipur,
Chhattisgarh.............(Plaintiff)
2. Khulesh Sahu S/o Parmanand Sahu Aged About 26 Years R/o Behind
Oghad Baba Mandir, Gwari Shankar, Near Fancy Store, Professor
Colony, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh...............(Defendant
No.03)
3. Smt. Rekha Sonkar W/o Lt. Bharat Sonkar Aged About 44 Years R/o
Gram- Budapara, Balod, Tehsil And District- Balod,
Chhattisgarh...............(Defendant No.04)
4. Smt. Gyatri Sonkar D/o Lt. Patalu @ Budhram Sonkar Aged About 42
Years R/o Gram- Budapara, Balod, Tehsil And District- Balod,
Chhattisgarh...............(Defendant No.05)
5. Smt. Rohini Sonkar W/o Lt. Shatrughan Sonkar Aged About 40 Years
R/o Goverdhan Para, Rajiv, Tehsil And District- Raipur,
Chhattisgarh................(Defendant No.6)
6. Smt. Radha Sonkar D/o Lt. Shri Patalu @ Budhram Sonkar Aged
About 35 Years R/o Village Ghughwa Khudmuda, Tehsil- Patan,
District- Durg, Chhattisgarh.....................(Defendant No.07)
7. Manju Sonkar D/o Patalu @ Budhram Sonkar Aged About 30 Years R/
o Amapara, Rajiv, Tehsil- Rajiv, District- Raipur,
Chhattisgarh...................(Defendant No.8)
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Rishabh Gupta, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Bharat Lal Dembra, Advocate For Respondents No.2 to 7 : None Hon'ble Shri. Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 03.11.2022
1. This writ petition under Article 227 has been filed against order dated 02.11.2021 passed by the 16 th Civil Judge - Class II, Raipur in Civil Suit No. 263 A/17 whereby an application moved by the petitioner/defendant No.1 under Order 8 Rule 1 A (3) of the C.P.C. has 2 been rejected.
2. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that the agreement to sell dated 31.05.2017 is null and void and for permanent injunction. Written statement was filed by the defendant No.1. The original defendant No.2 late Santi Sonkar died during the pendency of this Civil Suit and defendants No. 3 to 8 are her legal heirs. The Suit property is survey No.581/35 ad-measuring 1200 square feet and the dispute exists between the family members. The plaintiff/Respondent No.1 moved an application under Order 7 Rule 14 of the CPC to produce a registered sale deed, and revenue records and same was allowed by the trial Court vide order dated 02.11.2021 but on the same date an application was moved by the petitioner/defendant No.1 under Order 8 Rule 1 A (3) of the CPC whereby some records, consent deed and will deed were produced. No reply was filed by the plaintiff but the learned trial Court rejected the application on the ground that such documents can't be taken on record, as same have been produced for cross examination of the plaintiff witnesses. The observation made by the learned trial Court has not been pleaded in the application moved by the petitioner/defendant No.1 dated 19.07.2019.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial Court has committed illegality in rejecting the application moved by the petitioner.
4. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent No.1/defendant submits that such application has been moved at the belated stage. The Civil Suit is pending since 2017 and therefore, learned trial Court has rightly rejected the application.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition.
3
6. From record it appears that two applications were moved, one by the plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 14 read with Section 151 of the CPC and one by the defendant No.1 under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) of the CPC, for taking certain document on record. The learned trial Court allowed the application moved by the plaintiff but rejected the application moved by defendant No.1. The reason which has been assigned by the learned trial Court for rejecting the application moved by the defendant is not cogent and clinching and this Court is not convinced with the reason so assigned in the order. Further considering the provisions contained under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) of the CPC, it is clear that if the documents are relevant for just decision of the case it can be taken on record.
7. In the case of In the matter of Sugandhi (dead) by Lrs. V. P. Rajkumar, reported in (2020)4 Cur CC 217:: (2020)4 Civil Court Case 378 the relevant para 10 reads as under:-
"10. Coming to the present case, the defendants have filed an application assigning cogent reasons for not producing the documents along with the written statement. They have stated that these documents were missing and were only traced at a later stage. It cannot be disputed that these documents are necessary for arriving at a just decision in the suit. We are of the view that the Courts below ought to have granted leave to produce these documents."
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Levaku Pedda Reddamma& Ors. Vs. Gottumukkala Venkata Subbamma & Anr. Civil Appeal No. 4096 of 2022 [@SLP (C) No. 7452/2022] has held as under:-
"We find that the trial Court as well as the High Court have gravely erred in law in not permitting the defendants to produce documents, the relevance of 4 which can be examined by the trial Court on the basis of the evidence to be led, but to deprive a party to the suit not to file documents even if there is some delay will lead to denial of justice.
It is well settled that rules of procedure are hand-maid of justice and, therefore, even if there is some delay, the trial Court should have imposed some costs rather than to decline the production of the documents itself.
Mr. Nazki states that the plaintiffs-respondents should be permitted to lead additional evidence, if any, on the basis of the documents now produced by the defendants. We accept the request. The plaintiff shall lead additional evidence, if any, before the defendants are given an opportunity to lead evidence to rebut the evidence produced by the plaintiff.
Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of."
9. In the light of discussion and the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, the order passed by 16 th Civil Judge - Class - II, Raipur in Civil Suit No.263 A/17 dated 02.11.2021 is hereby set aside and the application moved by the petitioner/defendant No.1 under Order 8 Rule 1 A (3) of the CPC.
10. Now, considering the fact that the Civil Suit was filed in the year 2017 and it is still pending, it would be expedient to direct the trial Court to conclude the trial within a reasonable time, as submitted by learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff. Therefore, the learned trial Court is directed to conclude the proceedings of Civil Suit preferably within a period of six months from the next date of hearing.
11. Learned trial Court is also directed to grant an opportunity to lead additional evidence to the plaintiff, if so produced. The admissibility and reliability of said documents would be considered by the learned trial Court on its own merits.
12. Interim relief, if any, granted earlier stands vacated. 5
13. Accordingly, this writ petition with the aforesaid observation(s)/direction(s) stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
yasmin Judge