Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
NUPUR BHATI, J.
Dinesh Hingar S/o Bhanwarlal – Appellant
Versus
Kishanlal S/o Raghunath Ji Kumawat – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1393/2024, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1356/2024
Decided on : 22-05-2024
CIVIL PROCEDURE - CIVIL SUIT AND DOCUMENT PRODUCTION - ORDER 8 RULE 1A CPC - The court discussed the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1A CPC, emphasizing the obligation of the defendant to produce relevant documents at the time of filing the written statement. The court interpreted that failure to provide a plausible reason for the delay in producing documents undermines the application for their admission. The court concluded that the trial court erred in allowing the respondent's application, as it did not meet the necessary legal standards for relevance and timeliness.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of a contract regarding agricultural land, claiming that the respondent refused to execute the sale deed despite receiving payment and handing over possession. The respondent filed multiple applications to introduce documents late in the proceedings, which the petitioner contested as irrelevant and a tactic to delay the case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court had erred in allowing the respondent's application under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) CPC, as the respondent failed to provide a cogent reason for the delay in producing the documents and did not establish their relevance to the case.
Issues: Whether the trial court's order allowing the respondent to introduce documents under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) CPC was justified given the lack of timely submission and relevance of those documents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1A(3) CPC require a defendant to produce documents at the time of filing the written statement and to provide a valid reason for any delay in producing documents later. The absence of such reasons and the failure to demonstrate the relevance of the documents led to the conclusion that the trial court's decision was incorrect.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were allowed, and the impugned orders allowing the application under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) CPC were quashed and set aside.
ORDER :
NUPUR BHATI, J.
1. Though the matters were listed in the fresh category, However on the Joint request of the Counsel for the parties the matters are being heard today itself.
2. These writ petitions have been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with the prayer to set aside the impugned order dated 31.10.2023 (Annex.6) passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.4 Udaipur in Civil Suit Nos. 310/2012 (CIS No. 260/2014) (Dinesh V/s Kishanlal) and 314/2012 (CIS No. 289/2014) (Hema V/s Kishanlal) respectively and to reject the application dated 31.10.2023 (Annex.5) filed by the respondent under Order 8 Rule 1 A (3) CPC. Since the issue involved in both these writ petitions is common, therefore, the writ petitions are being decided by this common order.
3. Brief facts of the case are the petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit (Annex.1) for Specific Performance of Contract and Permanent Injunction against the respondent/defendant wherein it was contended that the land of Araji No. 2314 measuring 0.2800 hectares and Araji No. 2315 measuring 0.2150 hectares, total land measuring 0.4950 hectares situated in Village Dewali Patwar Shobhagpura, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur was in khatedari of respondent/defendant and the respondent/defendant proceeded to cut/demarcate the plots in the said agricultural land for which a layout plan was prepared and thereafter plot no.11 measuring 1511.25 square feet and plot No.12 measuring 1985 square feet were agreed to be sold to the petitioner/plaintiffs for sale consideration of amount of Rs. 1,20,900/- and 1,58,800/-respectively and an agreement to sale was executed between the parties on 21.12.2001. Thereafter, the consideration amount was duly paid and the possession was also handed over to the petitioners and the parties thereafter agreed to get the sale deed registered however, the respondent/defendant refused to execute and register the same and thus, the suit was filed by the petitioners against the respondents for specific performance and permanent Injunction.
4. Furthermore, written statement were filed by the respondent/defendant on 24.01.2013 (Annex.2) and thereafter issues were framed by the trial court. During pendency of suit proceedings, an application under Order 1 Rule 10 was filed by Vinod Katariya & Others which was rejected vide order dated 31.3.2015. Thereafter the proceedings remained stayed on account of interim order passed by this Hon'ble High Court in SBCWP No. 7637/2015 and 7639/2015. The writ petitions were dismissed on 02.06.2016.
5. Thereafter an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC came to filed by the respondent/defendant on 29.11.2019 and on 02.03.2020 another application (Annex.3) under Order 8 Rule 1 A (3) CPC was filed by the respondent and vide order dated 31.7.2023, (Annex.4) the application under Order 8 Rule 1A (3) dated 02.03.2020 was allowed by learned trial court and by another order dated 31.07.2023 the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed by the respondent/defendant was rejected. Thereafter on 18.09.2023 an affidavit of witness Dinesh was filed on behalf of the petitioner/plaintiff.
6. Furthermore on 31.10.2023 another application (Annex.5) under Order 8 Rule 1A (3) was filed by the respondent/defendant for taking on record certain documents viz. copies of FIR filed by the petitioner, FR and other the documents related to agreement of respondent with one Vinod Kataria viz. copies of suit, judgment and decree and along with the copy of order dated 25.10.2013 passed in DB Special Appeal No 828/2011.
7. Furthermore, on 31.10.2023 an application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC was filed by the petitioner for taking on record certain documents to show that the respondent had executed agreement to sale with other persons with whom he had entered into compromise thereafter.
8. The learned Trial Court vide order dated 31.10.2023 (Annex.6) has allowed the application of respondent filed under Order 8 Rule 1A (3) CPC and the application filed
The court established that a defendant must produce relevant documents at the time of the written statement and provide valid reasons for any subsequent applications to introduce documents; failure t....
Defendants' failure to show due diligence and timely filing of documents justifies dismissal of their applications under the Code of Civil Procedure and no grounds were shown for High Court intervent....
While exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Court is not sitting as an appellate court over the orders passed by the subordinate courts.
Procedural rules serve to facilitate justice; allows for late admission of evidence if no prejudice is caused to the opposing party.
Documents not mentioned in the plaint cannot be introduced later without court permission, emphasizing the necessity of timely submission under Order VII Rule 14 CPC.
Procedural rules should facilitate justice, allowing for the admission of necessary documents and clarifying criteria for adding parties.
The court established that procedural delays should not prevent the introduction of relevant evidence, prioritizing substantial justice.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
