Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jawaharlal Jain vs Subhash Chandra Jain on 23 September, 2022
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
M.P. No. 4226/2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
ON THE 23rd OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
MISC. PETITION No. 4226 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
JAWAHARLAL JAIN S/O LATE DEVI
PRASAD JAIN, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: BUSINESS, RESIDENT OF
KHAJURI TOLA, SATNA, TEHSIL
RAGHURAJNAGAR, DISTRICT SATNA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI R.P. KHARE- ADVOCATE)
AND
SUBHASH CHANDRA JAIN, S/O LATE
KOMALCHANDRA JAIN, AGED ABOUT 59
YEARS, RESIDENT OF MAHAVEER MARG,
1.
SATNA, TEHSIL RAGHURAJNAGAR,
DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
RAHUL JAIN S/O LATE KOMALCHAND
JAIN, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: BUSINESS, RESIDENT OF
2. MAHAVEER MARG, SATNA, TEHSIL
RAGHURAJNAGAR, DISTRICT SATNA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN S/O LATE
DEVCHANDRA JAIN, AGED ABOUT 55
YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE, R/O
LORDGANJ JAIN MANDIR, PAN DARIBA,
3. OPPOSITE MAKRAVAHINI [WRONGLY
MENTIONED AS MAKARVAHINI] MANDIR,
(TIWARI JI KA BADA), JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
M.P. No. 4226/2022
2
SMT. SADHNA JAIN AGED ABOUT 50
YEARS, W/O SHRI RISHABH JAIN AND
DAUGHTER OF LATE DEVCHANDRA JAIN,
4.
R/O OPPOSITE NAGAR NIGAM, REWA
DISTRICT REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
KAILASH KUMAR KHANDELWAL, AGED
ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O ARJUNDAS
KHANDELWAL, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS,
PERMANENT RESIDENT OF SATNA,
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT 230, HENRY P.I.
DULUTH, G.A. 30097 (GEORGIA), UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA, THROUGH HIS
5. ATTORNEY, SHRI RAVINDRA KUMAR
KHANDELWAL, S/O SHRI
BRIJENDRANATH KHANDELWAL, AGE
ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCCUPAION BUSINESS,
R/O MUNNALAL PANSARI KI BAGIYA,
NEAR OVER BRIDGE SATNA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
RAVINDRA KUMAR KHANDELWAL, AGED
ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O SHRI
BRIJENDRANATH KHANDELWAL,
6. OCCUPATION BUSINESS, R/O MUNNALAL
PANSARI KI BAGIYA, NEAR OVER BRIDGE
SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THROUGH
7. THE COLLECTOR, SATNA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. M.P. No. 4226/2022 3 This petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed challenging the order dated 03.09.2022 (Annexure-P/7) passed in Civil Suit No. 73-A/2012 by the 3rd Additional Judge to the Court of 1st Civil Judge, Junior Division, Satna by which the application filed by the petitioner/defendant No. 1 under Order 8 Rule 1A of the C.P.C. has been rejected.
2. Necessary facts for disposal of the present petition, in short, are that respondents No. 1 and 2/plaintiffs filed a suit seeking a decree for declaration by virtue of the Will dated 29.10.2000 executed by Chanda Bai. The plaintiffs are the owner and in possession of the suit land. The plaintiffs further claimed the relief of declaration of the Will dated 21.10.2000 in favour of the petitioner/defendant No. 1 to be a forged and fabricated document and injunction restraining the petitioner from transferring the suit property in any manner. The petitioner/defendant No. 1 filed a written statement stating that the Will in favour of the plaintiffs is forged and fabricated document. Chanda Bai has not executed the Will in favour of the plaintiffs/respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Chanda Bai died on 11.11.2000 and the disputed Will was alleged to have been got executed prior to 13 days of her death and the alleged Will has not been traced or found by the plaintiffs for more than 12 years. M.P. No. 4226/2022 4
3. In the case, the petitioner was not aware of the execution of the Will by Chanda Bai and came to know about the plaint filed in Suit No. 23/3010/90/2010 as well as the order-sheets. When his Advocate was preparing the case for final arguments by inadvertence, the documents could not be filed though the written statement was filed in the year 2012. Immediately when the documents were traced, the petitioner filed the application under Order 8 Rule 1A of the C.P.C.
4. The said application was opposed by the respondents and the trial Court by the impugned order dated 03.09.2022 has rejected the application filed under Order 8 Rule 1A of the C.P.C.
5. Challenging the order dated 03.09.2022, it is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that initially Shri Agrawal Advocate conducted the case of the petitioner and thereafter, Shri Akhilesh Gupta, Advocate is conducting the case of the petitioner, therefore, the documents could not be filed by the petitioner earlier. Moreover, the trial Court failed to consider that the petitioner had explained the reasons for delay in filing the documents at the stage of arguments and while preparing the case for final hearing, it was discovered that the documents proposed to be filed by the petitioner was found in the Advocate's file of the petitioner, therefore, the delay caused in filing of the M.P. No. 4226/2022 5 application is bonafide and ought to have been condoned and the documents ought to have been taken on record.
6. The trial Court while deciding the application under Order 8 Rule 1A of the C.P.C. should have adopted a lenient view.
7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
8. Order 8 Rule 1A of the C.P.C. is read as under:-
"1A. Duty of defendant to produce documents upon which relief is claimed or relied upon by him.-(1) Where the defendant bases his defence upon a document or relies upon any document in his possession or power, in support of his defence or claim for set-off or counter-claim, he shall enter such document in a list, and shall produce it in Court when the written statement is presented by him and shall, at the same time, deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the written statement. (2) Where any such document is not in the possession or power of the defedant, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose possession or power it is.
[(3) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the defendant under this rule, but, is not so produced 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 documents-
(a) produced for the cross-examination of the plaintiff's witnesses, or M.P. No. 4226/2022 6
(b) handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.]
9. Thus, it is clear that the documents at a later stage can be filed only with the leave of the trial Court. In the present case, the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the trial is on the verge of final hearing and the date has been fixed for final hearing. Two opportunities have already been granted. The Order 8 Rule 1A of the C.P.C. provides that where the defendant bases his defence upon a document or relies upon any document in his possession or power, in support of his defence or claim for set-off or counter-claim, he shall enter such documents in a list, and shall produce it in Court when the written statement is presented by him and shall, at the same time, deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the written statement. The documents proposed to be taken on record shows that the documents were in possession of the petitioner since 2015 and some documents were in possession since 2018. Thereafter, the petitioner has not been able to explain the delay for not filing the same for last four years. In such a situation, rejected the application.
10. In the present case, the case is at the stage of final hearing. If the petitioner is allowed to file documents, at such a belated stage, then the plaintiffs would certainly get prejudice. When the petitioner himself had no personal knowledge of the documents since, 2012 when the written statement M.P. No. 4226/2022 7 was filed, then the trial Court has not committed any mistake by refusing to grant leave to the petitioner to file the documents at the final hearing stage.
11. As the trial Court has judicially exercised the jurisdiction vested in it, therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the trial Court did not commit any jurisdictional error by rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Order 8 Rule 1A of the C.P.C.
12. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed at the admission stage itself.
(S.A. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE ashish Digitally signed by ASHISH KUMAR LILHARE Date: 2022.09.26 17:35:04 +05'30'