Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kalicharan Shivhare vs Rajesh Shivhare on 21 January, 2026
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2759
1 MP-4126-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 21st OF JANUARY, 2026
MISC. PETITION No. 4126 of 2025
KALICHARAN SHIVHARE
Versus
RAJESH SHIVHARE AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sameer Kumar Shrivastava - learned Counsel for petitioner-
defendant No.1.
Shri Amit Lahoti- learned Counsel for respondent No.1- plaintiff.
ORDER
Heard on IA No. 14372 of 2025 , an application has been filed by plaintiff-respondent No.1 seeking permission to place an additional document on record.
2. The plaintiff submitted that, on 26th July 2025, an application under Section 151 of CPC was filed stating that due to a typographical error in the impugned order dated 21st July 2025, the name of 'Omprakash Shivhare' had been mentioned instead of 'Kalicharan' in the third line of para 3 on page 2. In response to this application, the trial Court, by its order dated 26th July 2025, amended the order dated 21st July 2025.
3 . Considering the reasons provided by the plaintiff in the IA, the same is allowed, and the document is taken on record.
4 . Further, petitioner-defendant No.1 has filed IA No. 1032 of 2026 , Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 1/23/2026 10:48:46 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2759 2 MP-4126-2025 seeking dispensation of service upon respondents No. 2, 4, and 5. The petitioner submits that these respondents are co-defendants and that their presence is unnecessary for the adjudication of the present matter.
6. Considering the reasons presented by petitioner, the application is allowed, and service upon respondents No.2, 4, and 5 is dispensed with at the risk of the petitioner.
7. The instant Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by petitioner- defendant No. 1 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 21st July 2025 (along with the later order dated 26th July 2025) passed by the VIth District Judge, District Shivpuri, in Regular Civil Suit No. 06-A of 2019. The trial Court had rejected the application filed by petitioner-defendant No. 1 under Section 151 of CPC, which raised objections regarding the production of documents by the plaintiff during cross-examination.
8. The petitioner-defendant No. 1 contends that the plaintiff filed a suit for the recovery of money, alleging that the defendants, including the petitioner, had entered into an oral agreement for the sharing of profits and losses in the liquor business. The defendants, including the petitioner, denied the existence of such an agreement. The plaintiff filed an application under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC to place 823 pages of documents on record, which were intended to be used during the cross-examination of the defendant's witnesses. The trial Court initially rejected the application, stating that the documents should have been filed along with the plaintiff's evidence, and the plaintiff failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay. The Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 1/23/2026 10:48:46 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2759 3 MP-4126-2025 Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 12th March 2025, in Miscellaneous Petition No.87 of 2024, upheld the trial Court's rejection. During cross-examination, the plaintiff sought to confront the defendants with these documents, which had not been included in the record. Defendant No.1 objected, contending that allowing the confrontation would violate the earlier order of this Court. It is argued that the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to law, as the plaintiff had been denied permission to file the documents, and this Court had already affirmed that rejection.
9. On the other hand, learned Counsel for respondent No.1- plaintiff contends that documents can be referred to during cross-examination to refresh the memory of a witness, in accordance with Order 13 Rule 1(3), Order 7 Rule 14(4), and Order 8 Rule 1-A(4) of CPC. The documents were not filed earlier because their relevance emerged only at the time of cross- examination and, therefore, should be allowed. By supporting the impugned order, learned Counsel for respondent No.1- plaintiff prayed for rejection of this misc. petition.
10. Upon hearing the learned counsel for both parties and reviewing the impugned order, it is clear that the core issue concerns the propriety of introducing documents not placed on record earlier and the extent to which such documents can be used during cross-examination. The learned trial Court had already rejected the application for these documents, and this Court had affirmed that rejection vide order dated 12th of March, 2025 passed in Misc. Petition No. 87 of 2024. Consequently, the trial Court's decision to allow these documents during cross-examination would be in Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 1/23/2026 10:48:46 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2759 4 MP-4126-2025 violation of the earlier orders. However, in the interest of ensuring a fair trial, the plaintiff should be given a reasonable opportunity to place the documents on record, and the defendants must be allowed to respond to the same. The defendants' right to cross-examine the plaintiff on these documents must be preserved to avoid any prejudice.
11. In view of the above observations, the matter is remanded back to the trial Court with the following directions:-
''(a) The plaintiff is directed to supply the documents he intends to use for cross-examining the defendants' witnesses to petitioner-defendant No. 1.
(b) Upon receipt of these documents, the petitioner-
defendant No. 1 may review the set of 823 pages and identify the documents relevant to cross-examination.
(c) If any documents from the set of 823 pages have already been provided to the defendants, the plaintiff will not be allowed to confront the defendants' witnesses with them during cross-examination.
(d) However, if any documents are found to be new or not part of the 823 pages set, the trial Court may allow them to be admitted as evidence, subject to the procedure established by law.
(e) The trial Court shall ensure that the defendants' right to fair cross-examination is not compromised.''
12. For the reasons stated above, the impugned order is set aside, and the matter is remanded to the learned trial Court with the aforementioned Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 1/23/2026 10:48:46 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:2759 5 MP-4126-2025 directions.
13. The petition is disposed of accordingly.
(HIRDESH) JUDGE mkb Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 1/23/2026 10:48:46 AM