Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dinesh Singhal vs Piyush Sharma on 5 January, 2026
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:71
1 MP-5577-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 5 th OF JANUARY, 2026
MISC. PETITION No. 5577 of 2025
DINESH SINGHAL
Versus
PIYUSH SHARMA
Appearance:
Shri Sunil Kumar Jain - Advocate for the petitioner.
ORDER
This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner/plaintiff, being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 18.09.2025 passed in RCSA No. 102/2021 by the Additional Judge to the Court of First Civil Judge, Senior Division, Shivpuri (M.P.), whereby the trial Court rejected the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order VII Rule 14 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner instituted a civil suit for specific performance of contract on the basis of an agreement to sell dated 30.09.2018, allegedly executed by the respondent/defendant after receiving part consideration, wherein the defendant agreed to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondent/defendant filed a written statement denying the execution of the agreement to sell; however, the execution of the document was admitted, though claimed to be for a different purpose. No supporting document was filed by the defendant in this Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRACHI MISHRA Signing time: 1/8/2026 11:13:07 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:71 2 MP-5577-2025 regard.
3. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner/plaintiff filed an application under Order VII Rule 14 read with Section 151 CPC, stating that earlier proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were pending against the defendant, namely SC NIA No. 124/2018, before the JMFC, Shivpuri. In the said proceedings, the petitioner had appeared as a defence witness at the request of the defendant and had stated on oath that his shop was constructed on land purchased from the defendant- Piyush Sharma. According to the petitioner, at the time of deposition, the relationship between the parties was cordial, and therefore the petitioner deposed in favour of the defendant. The said statement, which forms part of judicial proceedings, remains unchallenged till date. It was submitted that the certified copy of the said statement was recently obtained and is required for the purpose of cross-examination of the defendant and for effectively putting questions to him during trial. The trial Court rejected the application on the ground that the document was not produced at the earliest opportunity and that it related merely to an oral statement. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition has been filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial Court committed an error in rejecting the application on a misconceived premise. It was submitted that in civil proceedings, no presumption can be drawn unless a witness is confronted with the relevant document, and therefore the petitioner cannot be denied the opportunity to place the certified copy of judicial proceedings on record. It is submitted that document sought to be Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRACHI MISHRA Signing time: 1/8/2026 11:13:07 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:71 3 MP-5577-2025 produced is a certified copy of a judicial record, which was obtained recently and has direct bearing on the core issue involved in the suit. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohammed Abdul Wahid v. Nilofer (Civil Appeal No. 8146 of 2023) , wherein it has been held that the freedom to produce documents for the purpose of cross- examination or refreshing memory is integral to fair adjudication, and denial of such opportunity may fatally compromise the proceedings. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that the law does not differentiate between a party to the suit and a witness for the purposes of evidence. Hence, it is prayed that petition be allowed.
5. Although the case is listed for admission, considering the nature of the controversy and the limited issue involved, this Court is of the opinion that issuance of notice to the respondent is not necessary at this stage.
6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
7. In Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1128 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that an application for taking documents on record cannot be rejected solely on the ground of delay if the document is relevant and necessary for proper adjudication of the dispute.
8. Upon perusal of the impugned order and the documents filed, it is evident that the petitioner seeks to place on record certified copies of judicial proceedings wherein the petitioner himself had stated on oath that the shop in question was purchased from the defendant. The said document is sought to be used to contradict the defendant's stand that no agreement for sale was Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRACHI MISHRA Signing time: 1/8/2026 11:13:07 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:71 4 MP-5577-2025 ever executed. Prima facie, the document appears to be relevant and material for the effective adjudication of the pending civil suit.
9. This Court is of the considered view that the learned trial Court, while rejecting the application solely on the ground of delay, failed to appreciate the relevance and evidentiary value of the document. Denial of an opportunity to bring such a document on record would cause serious prejudice to the petitioner and may result in miscarriage of justice.
10. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 18.09.2025 passed in RCSA No. 102/2021 by the Additional Judge to the Court of First Civil Judge, Senior Division, Shivpuri (M.P.) is hereby set aside. The application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order VII Rule 14 CPC stands allowed. The learned trial Court is directed to take the documents on record and proceed with the suit in accordance with law.
The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.
(HIRDESH) JUDGE Prachi Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRACHI MISHRA Signing time: 1/8/2026 11:13:07 AM