The court upheld the trial court's rejection of applications for document production and witness recall due to lack of demonstrated relevance and procedural compliance.

Order :

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J.)

1. These two petitions have been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging therein the order dated 06.01.2025, whereby the applications moved by the plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 14(3) and Order 18 Rule 17 have been rejected vide order dated06.01.2025.

2. The facts of the present case are as under:-

The petitioner/plaintiff, a registered partnership firm, instituted a civil suit on 29.09.2014 through its authorized partner Harshdeep Juneja against the respondents/defendants for specific performance of contract. The defendants filed their written statement. The learned trial Court framed issues. The plaintiff closed its evidence on 03.02.2016. Defendant No. 1- Prakash Chand Baid was examined and cross-examined on 09.12.2024.

The counsel for the plaintiff put a question with regard to the agreement dated 10.10.2013, whereby he had entered into another agreement for the same suit land with one Amit Choudhary. An objection was taken by the counsel for defendant No.1 on such question and that was sustained. The plaintiff moved an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 before the concerned police station and procured the certified copy of the agreement dated 10.10.2013 on 19.12.2024.

Thereafter, the plaintiff moved an application under Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC to recall the defendants’ witness. The plaintiff moved another application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of CPC along with a copy of the agreement dated 10.10.2013.

The learned trial Court vide order dated 06.01.2025 rejected the application moved under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of CPC on the ground that the plaintiff has not pleaded as to how and why the agreement dated 10.10.2013 is relevant for just adjudication of the case. The learned trial Court imposed a cost of Rs.1,000/-. On the same date, the learned trial court rejected the application moved under Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC on the ground that the application moved under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of CPC had already been rejected. Therefore, there is no occasion to recall the witness.

3. Mr. Arvind Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that on 11.11.2024 when defendant No. 1- Prakash Chand Baid was examined and cross-examined, the agreement dated 10.10.2013 was not available on record. He would further submit that the plaintiff obtained the document under the Right to Information Act and the same is relevant for the just adjudication of the case. He would also submit that an application under Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC was also moved to recall the witness so that the plaintiff may put a question relating to the agreement dated 10.10.2013. He would contend that for substantial justice, the learned trial Court ought to have allowed the applications moved by the plaintiff. In support of his arguments, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Punit Agrawal Vs. Muralilal and Others, 2020 (3) M.P.L.J. 368; the order passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati in the matter of Velugu Eswaramma and Another Vs. Velugu Shoba Rani, 2019 SCC OnLine AP 14 and the judgment passed by the coordinate bench of this Court in F.A. No 145 of 2005, Harnarayan Sharma Vs. Paras Vaid, dated 07/07/2015

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents.

5. In both cases, the plaintiff has not annexed a copy of the plaint. The civil suit filed by the plaintiff was registered as Civil Suit No. 168A/14, therefore, it can be presumed that it was filed in the year 2014. During the course of the argument, it was informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on 20.01.2025 the matter was fixed for final arguments before the learned trial Court.

6. From a perusal of the pleadings made in the petitions, it appears that a civil suit for the specific performance of contract was filed by the petitioner/plaintiff. Thereafter, the written statements were filed by the defendants. The plaintiff’s e