Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shubhalay Villa A Partnership Firm vs Vishandas Parwani (Dead) Through Legal ... on 24 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:48836
1 MP-5163-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI
ON THE 24th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 5163 of 2025
SHUBHALAY VILLA A PARTNERSHIP FIRM AND OTHERS
Versus
VISHANDAS PARWANI (DEAD) THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS AND
OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Amit Mishra - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Sankalp Kochar - Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3 .
ORDER
The instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitioners/defendants invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court, challenging the legality, validity and propriety of order dated 13.08.2025 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the Court of 9th District Judge, Bhopal, in RCSB/1600018/2015 whereby in a pending civil suit, the trial Court has rejected the application preferred by the petitioners/defendants for deciding the objection raised during cross-examination of the plaintiff witness and bringing certain documents on record under order 8 rule 1A(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC').
2. The facts important for deciding the case are that the respondents/plaintiffs have filed a suit seeking relief of recovery of amount along with interest wherein the petitioners/defendants have filed their written statement and contested the claim. The plaintiffs, thereafter, filed Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRACHI PANDEY Signing time: 26-09-2025 18:42:32 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:48836 2 MP-5163-2025 photocopies of some documents along with list of documents. They have moved an application for production of documents viz. cheques and sale- deeds and learned trial Court vide order dated 08.12.2016, allowed the said application directing the petitioners/defendants to produce the aforesaid documents. In compliance of order dated 08.02.2016, the petitioners/defendants on 22.03.2017, filed the aforesaid cheques along with other documents except sale-deeds which was contrary to the directions given by the trial Court vide order dated 08.02.2016. Since, the directions were only to produce cheques and sale-deeds, the learned trial Court instructed the petitioner/defendants to file a fresh application in respect of other documents produced by them before the Court. Thereafter, the petitioners/defendants have filed an application for taking documents on record which were not considered earlier by the trial Court and and vide order dated 09.05.2018, the trial Court refused to take such documents on record on the ground the same being filed at a belated stage with an intention to cause delay in trial proceedings. Thereafter, the petitioners/defendants again have filed another application for exhibiting the documents and examining the witness thereupon and the trial Court has rejected the said application vide order dated 23.07.2019 which was put to challenge before this Court in M.P. No.4187/2019 and vide order dated 03.08.2023, the co- ordinate Bench of this Court has dismissed the said miscellaneous petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that there was some delay in filing the application for bringing documents on record before the trial Court. However, according to him, the trial Court on earlier occasion Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRACHI PANDEY Signing time: 26-09-2025 18:42:32 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:48836 3 MP-5163-2025 had allowed only two documents to be taken on record whereas in respect of remaining documents, it was directed to file along with an appropriate application. He has submitted that the trial Court has rejected the application only on the ground of delay in filing the same with an intention to delay the trial proceedings which is not indeed correct and, therefore, he has prayed that the application submitted by the petitioners may be allowed. He has fairly submitted that since the evidence has been completed and case is fixed for final arguments, therefore, if the defendants/petitioners are not allowed to exhibit necessary documents, the petitioners will suffer irreparable loss and injustice. He has also submitted that the earlier application moved by the defendants/petitioners on 24.04.2018 was rejected by the trial Court vide order dated 09.05.2018 (Annexure-P/10) mainly on the ground that despite granting liberty on 22.03.2017, the defendants took more than one year for moving the application which makes their intention clear that they wanted to keep the suit pending unnecessarily and as such, learned counsel for the petitioners has prayed that even by imposing some cost upon the petitioners, their application may be allowed and they may be permitted to bring those documents on record, however, the learned trial Court has not considered the same. He has further argued that the petitioners/defendants has cross- examined the plaintiff witness, namely, Vishan Das Parwani showing him document in question wherein the plaintiffs took an objection upon some question asked by the defendants but the trial Court did not decide the same then and there and kept the said question open for the stage of final arguments that too without marking exhibit upon the documents which is Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRACHI PANDEY Signing time: 26-09-2025 18:42:32 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:48836 4 MP-5163-2025 contrary to the settled principle of law. He has also contended that the plaintiffs took the objection regarding exhibiting the documents for the purpose of cross-examining the plaintiff witness and the trial Court had to exhibit the same at the stage of cross-examination, however, the trial Court erred in not allowing the same.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the application preferred by the defendants/petitioners for bringing the documents on record had earlier been rejected by the trial Court vide orders dated 22.03.2017, 09.05.2018, 23.07.2019 and now, by the impugned order dated 13.08.2025 (Annexure-P/1), the trial Court has again rejected their application not only for the reason of causing delay but also on the ground that on several earlier occasions, the applications filed for the same purpose have been rejected by the trial Court and affirmed by this High Court. The petitioner/defendants are creating impediments in the disposal of the civil suit. The application filed by them under Section 151 of CPC at the very fag end of the civil suit is nothing but a fresh show of dilatory tactics. He has submitted that the petitioners are repeatedly filing the applications one after another despite the fact that the applications filed by them had already been rejected by the Court. Therefore, according to him, the instant petition is hit by the principle of res judicata. Learned counsel for the respondents has also submitted that the petitioners for one reason to another are moving the applications for bringing the documents on record despite knowing the fact that on earlier occasions, their applications had already been rejected by the trial Court and, therefore, according to him, not only on the ground of res Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRACHI PANDEY Signing time: 26-09-2025 18:42:32 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:48836 5 MP-5163-2025 judicata, but also on the ground that the documents are not relevant as per the opinion of the trial Court, this Court cannot substitute its own view with the view already taken by the co-ordinate Bench while exercising the power in a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. He has prayed for dismissal of petition with cost.
5. Heard the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the case.
6. On perusal, it appears that the plaintiffs/respondents have filed a suit for recovery of amount payable towards the conveyance of immovable property against the petitioners/defendants. The plaintiffs entered into a joint venture with the defendants for development of duplexes in a particular area of Bhopal where some dispute relating to performance of work arose between the parties and they preferred to enter into litigation. In the suit in question, the plaintiffs filed an application for directing the defendants to produce the cheques and sale deeds on record and in compliance thereof the defendants had produced a list of 12 documents on record, out of which, the trial Court, ordered to take cheques on record for just decision of the suit and directed the defendants to produce sale-deed on record. As far as the issue of acceptance of other documents is concerned, vide order dated 22.03.2017, the Court deferred the same for the time being. Upon further agitation by the defendants for the same purpose, vide order dated 09.05.2018, the trial Court rejected the prayer for taking the documents on record citing delay on the part of defendants. Thereafter, the petitioners/defendants again filed an application for exhibiting the documents and examining the witness Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRACHI PANDEY Signing time: 26-09-2025 18:42:32 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:48836 6 MP-5163-2025 thereupon and vide order dated 23.07.2019, the learned trial Court rejected the said application which was put to challenge before this Court by way of filing M.P. No.4187/2019 registered on 13.08.2019 and as informed by the counsel for the defendants, during the pendency of this petition, the cross- examination of plaintiff witness was completed wherein the trial Court has not decided the objection raised by the plaintiffs during cross-examination by showing the documents in question by the defendants. The learned trial Court has denied to exhibit the documents shown by the defendants and kept the issue pending for considering the same at the stage of final arguments. Thereafter, vide order dated 03.08.2023, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court has rejected the M.P. No.4187/2019. On perusal of aforesaid order, it is manifest that the fact regarding denial of marking documents shown by the defendants as exhibited during cross-examination of plaintiffs was not brought to the knowledge of the Court and there is no finding given by the co-ordinate Bench in this regard. The co-ordinate Bench has rejected the petition on the ground of delay as well as on the ground that the defendants have failed to substantiate as to how those documents are relevant for proper adjudication of the case. In the instant petition, the facts and situation are completely different than that of earlier round of litigation. In the case at hand, the defendants raised the ground of flaw in the procedure adopted by the trial Court during cross examination as the trial Court kept the objection pending raised by the defendants to decide the same at the stage of final hearing, but the documents shown by the defendants could not be marked. The said fact has also not disputed by the counsel for the plaintiff and can be Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRACHI PANDEY Signing time: 26-09-2025 18:42:32 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:48836 7 MP-5163-2025 ascertained through reply filed by the plaintiffs before the trial Court in respect of application filed by the defendants under Section 151 of CPC as well as application bearing I.A. No.18129/2025 filed herein for dismissal of petition. In the case of Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat , (2001) 3 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"14. When so recast, the practice which can be a better substitute is this:
Whenever an objection is raised during evidence-taking stage regarding the admissibility of any material or item of oral evidence the trial court can make a note of such objection and mark the objected document tentatively as an exhibit in the case (or record the objected part of the oral evidence) subject to such objections to be decided at the last stage in the final judgment. If the court finds at the final stage that the objection so raised is sustainable the Judge or Magistrate can keep such evidence excluded from consideration. In our view there is no illegality in adopting such a course. (However, we make it clear that if the objection relates to deficiency of stamp duty of a document the court has to decide the objection before proceeding further. For all other objections the procedure suggested above can be followed."
7. In the above referred judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid-down the procedure for deciding the objection raised during evidence taking stage holding that during evidence stage if any objection is raised on the basis of any material/documents, the trial Court can make a note of such objection and mark the objected document tentatively as an exhibit in the case and same can be considered and decided at the stage of final judgment.
8. Since, the issue involved in the instant case is entirely different from the earlier round of litigation where the fact regarding denial of exhibitance of documents while raising objection during cross-examination was not brought to the knowledge of the Court, perhaps, due to filing of the petition prior to completion of cross-examination of plaintiffs, the present petition cannot be said to be barred by the doctrine of res-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRACHI PANDEY Signing time: 26-09-2025 18:42:32NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:48836 8 MP-5163-2025 judicata. Be that as it may, if it is assumed that for some e x t a n t , res judicata would be applicable, the circumstances allow not to consider the same under the exception as the same would cause injustice to the defendants or defeat the ends of justice. The defendants have every right to put their defence effectively like plaintiffs. The purpose of res judicata is to prevent multiplicity of litigation but not at the cost of justice. "Justice is Above All", and in exceptional cases, res judicata may be relaxed or not applied.
9. Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is exercised for keeping the subordinate Courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. When a subordinate Court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have or has failed to exercise jurisdiction which it does have or the jurisdiction through available is being exercised by the Court in a manner not permitted by law and failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned thereby, the High Court may step in to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction.
10. In view of the above said discussion, this Court finds that the learned trial Court erred in not exhibiting the documents, particularly, when finds appropriate to keep the objection pending raised by the plaintiffs on the basis of said documents during the cross examination to decide in the later stage of trial i.e. final arguments.
11. Therefore, trial Court is directed to exhibit the documents shown by the defendants upon which the plaintiffs raised the objection Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRACHI PANDEY Signing time: 26-09-2025 18:42:32 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:48836 9 MP-5163-2025 during cross examination. However, it is made clear that the exhibitance is permitted to make the documents become part of evidence. The defendants are not permitted to examine or cross examine any witness upon the said documents.
12. The petition is a l l o w e d to the extent indicated above.
(HIMANSHU JOSHI) JUDGE Prachi Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRACHI PANDEY Signing time: 26-09-2025 18:42:32