Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ram Ashok Sharma vs Ramlallu Bais on 28 March, 2016
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : AT JABALPUR
Election Petition No.27/2014
Ram Ashok Sharma and another
vs.
Ramlallu Bais
â¦...............................................................................................
...............
Present:- Hon'ble Shri Justice C.V. Sirpurkar
...................................................................................................
...............
Shri G.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri R.P.Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Shri B.S.Cauhan and
Shri Sharad Gupta, Advocate for the respondent.
...................................................................................................
...............
ORDER
(28-03-2016) I.A.Nos.14705/2015 & 14706/2015
1. I.A.No.14705/2015 is an application under Order VII Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed on behalf of election petitioners for leave to receive in evidence copies of Collector's Guidelines for District Singrauli, for the year from 2002; whereas I.A.No.14706/2015 under sections 74, 75 & 78 of the Evidence Act has also been filed by the petitioners for admitting aforesaid guidelines in evidence and marking them as exhibits on the ground that they are certified copies of public documents.
2. It has been submitted on behalf of the election petitioners that they had filed certified copies of Collector's Guidelines for assessing the market value of immovable for the years from 2012-2013 to 2014-2015. The guidelines for remaining financial years from the year 2002 were not in possession of the petitioners and in spite of best efforts they could not produce the same at the time of filing of the election petition. Shri S.P. Shukla, District Registrar of District Singrauli, who was summoned by the Court, had submitted these guidelines before the Court; therefore, it has been prayed that the election petitioners be permitted to file aforesaid guidelines.
3. Respondent Ramlallu Bais, the elected candidate, has opposed I.A.No.14705/2015 on the ground that the petitioners did not plead about the guidelines for the years 2002 to 2012. The petitioners could very easily have obtained certified copies of the guidelines for those under the Right to Information Act. However, no explanation had been advanced for failure of the election petitioners to obtain those guidelines within time. In aforesaid circumstances, the guidelines cannot be allowed to be taken on record at this belated stage where the election petitioners' evidence is almost over. The election petitioners did not even file those guidelines along with I.A.No.14705/2015; therefore, it has been prayed that I.A.No. 14705/2015 be dismissed.
4. Sub rule (3) of Rule 14 of Order 7 ordains that a document which ought to be produced in the Court by the plaintiff when the plaint is presented or to be entered in the list to be annexed to the plaint but is not produced or entered accordingly, shall not, without leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit. There are no indications in Rule 14 of order 7 with regard to the guiding principles on which the Court should exercise its discretion either to grant or withhold leave to receive documents in evidence which were neither produced in the Court with the plaint nor entered in the list of documents being relied upon. In these circumstances, the Court needs to look into reasons for failure of the plaintiff to produce the documents in questions along with the plaint or failure to enter the same in the list of documents being relied upon. However, the prime consideration should be whether admission of such documents in evidence would advance the cause of justice.
5. Viewed from aforesaid angle, it may be noted that the documents proposed to be admitted in evidence in the instant case are Collector's guidelines prepared in accordance with the Madhya Pradesh Preparation and Revision of Market Value Guideline Rules, 2000. Aforesaid Rules were framed in exercise of the powers conferred upon the State Government by section 75 read with section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Thus, it is obvious that the petitioners could easily have obtained certified copies of aforesaid documents under the Right to Information Act in time of filing of plaint and there is no explanation as to why they failed to do so.
6. The relevant pleadings in the election petition are to be found in paragraph No.9, wherein it has been pleaded that the respondent had constructed two houses in village Medhauli. The house number of one of these is 61. In his affidavit filed along with nomination papers, the respondent had averred that aforesaid houses were his ancestral properties; whereas, these houses were constructed by the respondent, 10 years back. Thus, these houses are his self- acquired properties which were constructed using ill-gotten wealth while the respondent was the member Mayor of Municipal Corporation, Singrauli and; thereafter, was member of State Legislative Assembly. As per election petitioners, cumulative value of aforesaid two houses is approximately Rs. 2 crores; whereas, in his affidavit, the respondent had mentioned that the value of those houses is only Rs.1,70,00,000/-.
7. Thus, it may be noted that the difference in the value of the houses as alleged by the election petitioners in this election petition and as admitted by the respondent in his affidavit is only Rs.30,00,000/- which is approximately 15%. The Collector's guidelines sought to be filed by election petitioners, are prepared for the purpose of realizing stamp duty and are prepared for the guidance of the Government officers, who are not supposed to accept valuation of the property at the time of registry at a rate less than that assessable as per the guidelines. There is no presumption attached to those guidelines that the property valued as per the Collector's guidelines would fetch the same price in the market. In these circumstances, the guidelines, if taken on record, are unlikely to advance the cause of the petitioners in a substantial manner. Thus, it is not necessary in the ends of justice to grant leave to receive the guidelines in evidence.
8. In the result, I.A.No.14705/2015 deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed.
9. I.A.No.14706/2016 relates to the same issue. It has been prayed hereby that the certified copies of Collector's guidelines produced by Shri S.P.Shukla, District Registrar, Singrauli, are certified copies of public documents and therefore they ought to be admitted in evidence and marked as exhibits. However, since the Court has already dismissed I.A.No.14705/2015 declining to grant leave to receive the guidelines in evidence for the reasons stated hereinabove, I.A.No.14706/2016 under sections 74,77 & 78 of the Evidence Act is also dismissed.
I.A.No.15819/201510. This is another application under Order 7 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed on behalf of election petitioners for leave to receive certified copies of Khasra Panchsala of Survey Nos. 61/2 and 61/2-Kha situated in village Medhauli, District Singrauli, for the years from 2000-2001 to 2009-2010.
11. It has been submitted hereby that aforesaid documents could not be filed earlier as in spite of best efforts, the election petitioners could not get the copies of the same and the respondent had raised an objection that since the documents have not been filed by the election petitioners; therefore, the same could not be exhibited when the witness had brought the same along with him.
12. The application has been vehemently opposed on behalf of the respondent on the ground that bald statement that in spite of best efforts, the petitioners were unable to obtain the documents does not help the election petitioners in any manner. The certified copies of Khasra Panchsala could very easily have been obtained by the election petitioners by applying for the same to the Revenue Authorities. Thus, no cogent reason has been given for failure of the election petitioners to file the documents along with plaint. It has further been contended that the documents sought to be filed are not relevant for the purpose of this election petition as Survey No.61/2 Kha stood transferred in the name of Swargiya Bais Maya Ram Shiksha Samiti since the year 2011 and Survey No.61/2 stood transferred in the name of aforesaid Samiti since the year 2004. As such, it was not necessary for the respondent to mention the ownership of aforesaid land in the nomination papers filed by him in the year 2013. Therefore, it has been prayed that I.A.No.15819/2015 be dismissed.
13. It is true that there is no cogent reason for failure of the petitioners to obtain and file certified copies of Khasra Panchsala along with the plaint; however, for such failure and resultant inconvenience, the respondent may be duly compensated.
14. The main question to be considered in this regard is whether receipt of aforesaid certified copies in evidence is necessary in the interest of justice. It may be noted here that Issue No.3 relates to construction of a college in the name and style of Mayaram Degree College and Mayaram Law College by the respondent and his failure to disclose those properties in the affidavit filed along with the nomination papers. Though, the respondent has taken a plea that the land comprised in aforesaid two survey numbers stood transferred in the name of aforesaid Samiti much before the nomination papers to the election were filed and as such, it was not necessary for the respondent to mention aforesaid land in his affidavit but it is obvious that effect of the proposed documents may be considered only after they have been received in evidence. At this stage, it cannot be said that they are totally irrelevant for the purpose of this election petition. Therefore, it would be apposite to allow the application and receive the two documents proposed to be filed along with I.A.No.15819/2015.
15. Consequently, I.A.No.15819/2015 is allowed on the cost of Rs.2000/- payable by election petitioners to the respondent. The certified copy of Khasra Panchsala pertaining to years from 2000-2001 to 2009-2010 are taken on record. Since these two documents are certified copies of public documents, they may be deemed to have been proved by mere production thereof. Consequently, they are admitted in evidence and marked as Ex.P/16 and P/17, respectively.
I.A.No.15820/201516. This is an application filed on behalf of the election petitioners under Order 14 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure for framing of an additional issue.
17. It has been submitted on behalf of the election petitioners that they have specifically raised pleadings in paragraph Nos. 8 & 9 of the election petition that respondent has asserted in his affidavit filed along with nomination papers that two houses in Medhauli are his ancestral properties; whereas, aforesaid houses are his self-acquired properties of the respondent. Though, the Court has framed a general issue as to whether the respondent has given a false declaration in the affidavit filed along with the nomination papers and whether such false declaration has materially affected the election of the respondent? However, in view of the fact that the Court has framed specific issues with regard to other pleadings of the parties, it would be desirable to frame additional issue in respect of alleged false declaration of the party situated at Medhauli. In aforesaid circumstances, it has been prayed that following issue be framed:
âWhether the declaration of the houses situated in village Medhauli and house No.61 situated at Medhauli as his ancestral property is a false declaration by the respondent in his affidavit submitted along with nomination papers for the alleged elections held in the year 2013?
18. The respondent/elected candidate has opposed the application by filing a written reply. It has been stated in the reply that on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the issues were framed by the Court way back on 02-07-2014.
The parties went to trial on the basis of those issues. The election petitioners have examined as many as 10 witnesses till 02-12-2014. Issues already framed by the Court are more than sufficient. The petitioners are seeking to dictate the pace of the trial in this election petition. As such, the application is frivolous, mala fide and highly vexatious. Therefore, it has been prayed that the same be dismissed.
19. It is true that the evidence of election petitioners is almost over and they are proposing framing of additional issue at this belated stage. However, in paragraph Nos. 8 & 9 of the election petition the petitioners have made specific pleadings to the effect that the respondent owns two houses in village Medhauli and has shown them as his ancestral properties. This declaration is false to respondent own knowledge. These houses were constructed by respondent about 10 years back, as such, they are his self-acquired properties valued at approximately Rs.2 crores.
20. The respondent had replied to aforesaid averments. In his written reply, he submitted that his declaration to the effect that the houses at Medhauli are ancestral properties is not false because they were constructed by the respondent from the compensation received by him for land recorded in the name of his father.
21. A perusal of issues framed by my learned predecessor on 02-07-2014 reveals that no specific issue with regard to the aforesaid material proposition of fact has been framed; though specific issues with regard to other material propositions have been framed. Thus, it would be appropriate to frame the specific issue as proposed by the petitioners.
22. Consequently, I.A.No.15820/2015 is allowed on the cost of Rs.2000/- payable by the election petitioners to the respondent.
Following additional issue No.12 is framed:
âWhether the declaration made by the respondent in his affidavit submitted along with nomination papers for the elections held in the year 2013 to the effect that the house situated at village Medhauli and house No.61 situated at Medhauli are his ancestral properties, is false?
23. The election petitioners have stated that the petitioners have already led evidence with regard to the additional issue. The respondent shall be free to move appropriate application for recalling any witness for further cross-examination in the light of framing of additional issue. Such application, if filed, shall be considered on its own merits.
(C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE