Himachal Pradesh High Court
Rajesh Sharma & Ors vs State Of H.P. & Ors on 21 December, 2016
Author: Dharam Chand Chaudhary
Bench: Dharam Chand Chaudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
CMPMO No. 382 of 2016.
Decided on: 21.12.2016.
.
Rajesh Sharma & ors. ......Petitioners.
Versus
State of H.P. & ors. .......Respondents.
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1. Yes.
For the petitioners: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate.
of
For the respondents: Mr. Parmod Thakur, Addl. AG for respondents No.
1 & 2.
Mr. K.D.Sood, Advocate, with Ms. Ranjana
Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No. 3.
rt Mr. Naveen K. Bhardwaj, Advocate, for respondent
No. 4.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J (Oral).
Petitioners are plaintiffs in the trial Court. They are aggrieved by an order passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Court No. 1, Kangra, H.P. in an application under Section 151 CPC filed in Civil Suit No. 6-K/2009, whereby the permission sought by them to produce in evidence the documents annexed to this petition has been declined.
2. The suit has been filed by the plaintiffs for seeking declaration that they are Pujaris since time immemorial and also for recovery of their share in offerings like other Pujaris of Mata Brijeshwari Devi Temple, Kangra, H.P. The suit presently is at arguments stage. Learned trial Judge has declined the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:47:18 :::HCHP 2permission sought by the plaintiffs to produce the documents in evidence on the ground that the application should have been .
filed under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Also that the plaintiffs have failed to satisfy as to how the documents were necessarily required for just decision of the case and what prevented them from producing the same in of evidence at an appropriate stage.
3. True it is that the procedure for producing documents rt which the plaintiffs failed to produce at the time of institution of the suit, is provided under rule 14(3) of Order 7 CPC. The application, however, was filed under Section 151 CPC praying therein that the Court should exercise inherent jurisdiction and allow the plaintiffs to produce in evidence the documents in question.
4. This Court feels that mere mentioning of wrong provisions of law should not be taken to decline the relief sought if the party seeking such relief is otherwise entitled to the grant thereof. In the case in hand, no doubt, nothing has come in the application as to what prevented the plaintiffs from producing the evidence at a stage when they were in the witness-box, however, how these documents are necessary for just and effective decision of the controversy between the parties, the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:47:18 :::HCHP 3 same finds mention therein. The documents otherwise also pertain to the record of the temple trust. The same have been .
sought to be produced in evidence to prove the entries showing the plaintiffs to be the 'Pujaris' of the temple.
5. The suit, no doubt, is presently at the stage of hearing arguments, however, the perusal of provisions contained under of Order 7 Rule 14 (3) reveals that the same do not speak about a particular stage when the documents left to be produced at the rt time of institution of the suit can be filed. Therefore, when these documents are essentially required for just and effective decision of controversy between the parties, the trial Court should have granted an opportunity to the plaintiffs to produce the same in evidence.
6. This petition, as such, is allowed. Consequently, the plaintiffs are permitted to produce the documents in question, however, only by tendering the same on the date to be fixed hereinabove by this Court as the same forms the part of the record of temple trust hence, official in nature. Therefore, no oral evidence is required nor is permitted to be produced by the plaintiff to prove the same. The defendants, if so advised, shall, however, be at liberty to produce any evidence in rebuttal thereto and learned trial Judge shall afford an opportunity to do ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:47:18 :::HCHP 4 so, however, only if satisfied that the counter evidence is required.
.
7. In the event the trial Court is of the opinion that the defendants are entitled to produce the evidence in rebuttal of the documents in question, the same shall be produced on a date to be fixed by the trial Court. It is made clear that no other of and further opportunity shall be granted for the purpose. The defendants shall rt produce such evidence at their own responsibility and in case assistance of the Court is required, to take steps and obtain the notices to the witness(s), if any, dasti and shall ensure the presence of the witnesses only on the date to be so fixed by the trial Court.
8. The parties, through learned counsel representing them are directed to appear in the trial Court on 16.1.2017.
The Registry to supply an authenticated copy of this judgment to learned trial Court for compliance.
9. With these observations, the petition is allowed and stands disposed of.
December 21, 2016, ( Dharam Chand Chaudhary ),
(karan-) Judge.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:47:18 :::HCHP