Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anirudh Chaudhary vs M/S Odd Duck Advertising Through ... on 16 February, 2022
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 16th OF FEBRUARY, 2022
MISC. PETITION No. 639 of 2022
Between:-
1. ANIRUDH CHAUDHARY,
S/O SHRI B.S. CHAUDHARY,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
B-2, 506, ANAND VAN,
SCHEME NO. 140, I.D.A. COMPLEX,
PIPLIHAYANA, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MESSRS AZVAGATI FILM PRODUCTIONS
THROUGH 1 ANIRUDH CHAUDHARY PARTNER,
2 BRAHMI DEVI PARTNER,
B-2, 506, ANAND VAN,
SCHEME NO. 140, I.D.A. COMPLEX,
PIPLIHAYANA, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY MS. ISHITA VYAS, ADVOCATE)
VERSUS
1. M/S ODD DUCK ADVERTISING
THROUGH PRIYESH HARDIYA PARTNER,
62, NEW AGRAWAL NAGAR,
SAPNA SANGEETA,
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. M/S ODD DUCK ADVERTISING
THROUGH MITALI SHARMA,
D/O SHRI ASHOK SHARMA,
62, NEW AGRAWAL NAGAR,
SAPNA SANGEETA,
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
This petition coming on this day, the court passed the following:
ORDER
Heard on the question of admission.
-2-The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is preferred by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 03/02/2022 passed by the III Civil Judge, Junior Division, Indore (M.P.), whereby an application under order VII Rule 14(1) read with Order IV Rule 2 and 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been rejected.
Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the respondents / plaintiffs have filed a civil suit against the petitioners / defendants for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction. The petitioners have filed an application under Order VII Rule 14(1) read with Order IV Rule 2 and 3 of the CPC for direction to produce the original documents relied by the respondents, but the same was dismissed by the trial Court without examining the legislative intent behind the order VII Rule 14 of the CPC.
Learned counsel further submits that the learned Court below has erred in holding that it is because the respondent is Dominus Litis therefore, he is not required to furnish original documents. The reason assigned by the trial Court is completely misplaced and unreasonable. Since the suit has been filed seeking injunctions, therefore, it is required to examine the documents upon which the plaintiffs relies. The trial Court dismissed the application without considering the contents of the application and written submissions and therefore, grave prejudice would be caused to the petitioners in defending the suit. Hence, she prays that the impugned order be set aside and the application filed by the petitioners be allowed and the respondents be -3- directed to produce the original documents.
The provisions as contained in Order VII Rule 14 of the CPC reads as under:-
"Order 7 Rule 14: Production of document on which plaintiff sues or relies:- (1) Where a plaintiff sues upon a document or relies upon document in his possession or power in support of his claim, he shall enter such documents in a list, and shall produce it in Court when the plaint is presented by him and shall, at the same time deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the plaint.
(2) Where any such document is not in the possession or power of the plaintiff, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose possession or power it is.
(3) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the plaintiff when the plaint is presented, or to be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint but is not produced or entered accordingly, shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit.
(4) Nothing in this rule shall apply to document produced for the cross examination of the plaintiff's witnesses, or, handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory."
After perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is evident that the documents which have not been presented along with the plaint by the plaintiff shall not be accepted at a later stage without the leave of the Court.
In the present case, respondents have filed photocopies of all the relevant documents. As per the provisions of Order XIII Rule 1 of the CPC parties are free to produce the original documents at or before the settlement of issues. The petitioners have every right to challenge the said documents and adduce evidence in rebuttal of the same.
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed by the Court below does not appear perverse -4- or illegal. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any material irregularity or jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order.
Resultantly, no ground is available to admit the petition at motion hearing stage. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. The present petition sans merit and is hereby dismissed.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ANIL VERMA) JUDGE Tej Digitally signed by TEJPRAKASH VYAS Date: 2022.02.16 18:57:12 -08'00'