Back
GANESH RAM MEENA
Ramesh – Appellant
Versus
Phatteram – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. ownership and possession of property (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. relevance of documents in litigation (Para 3) |
| 3. arguments against the petitioner’s application (Para 4) |
| 4. court's reasoning on document relevance (Para 5 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. arguments for and against the relevance of documents (Para 6 , 7) |
| 6. discretion of the trial court (Para 8 , 11) |
| 7. outcome of writ petition (Para 12 , 13) |
ORDER :
Ganesh Ram Meena, J.
The petitioner/ plaintiff is aggrieved by the order dated 20.12.2018 passed by the court of learned Addl. civil Judge No.04, Bharatpur (for short 'the trial court') in suit No. 64/2016, dismissing his application filed by him under Order 7, Rule 14 (3) read with section 151 CPC.
2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents/ defendants stating that the plot in question situated at village Dhanota, Tehsil & District Bharatpur is in his ownership and possession. He inherited the said property from his father and the defendants have no concern with the said plot. He further stated in the plaint that the defendants have threatened him to dispossess from the suit property and that cause of action entailed
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.
The court emphasized that documents not presented at the initiation of a suit cannot be accepted later without adequate reason, especially after a significant delay.
Procedural rules should facilitate justice, allowing for the admission of necessary documents and clarifying criteria for adding parties.
Timely filing of documents is crucial in legal proceedings; failure to do so may result in dismissal of applications as meritless.
The court affirmed that a party's prior knowledge of documents and repeated attempts to submit them can justify dismissal of applications aimed at delaying proceedings.
Point of Law : If procedural violation does not seriously cause prejudice to adversary party, Court must lean towards doing substantial justice.
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
