Back
2011 Supreme(HP) 2079
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge.
V.K.Sharma ……… Petitioners.
Versus
Minakshi Sharma and another………Respondents.
CMPMO No. : 27 of 2011
Decided on: 5.4.2011
For the petitioner:Mr.Suneet Goel, Advocate.
For respondent No.1:Mr.J.R. Poswal, Advocate.
The necessity and admissibility of documents at a later stage of the proceedings must be demonstrated by the party seeking to produce them.
Headnote:
Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC - Production of Documents - The court allowed the production of certain documents at a later stage when the case was fixed for rebuttal evidence of the plaintiff. The petitioner filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order, and the court set aside the impugned order, stating that the documents filed at such a belated stage cannot be permitted to be taken on record.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants from alienating the suit property. During the proceedings, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC to place on record certain documents, which was allowed by the trial court. The petitioner filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against this order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the documents filed by the plaintiff at a belated stage cannot be permitted to be taken on record, as the applicant had not been able to demonstrate how these documents are necessary for the just decision of the case or why they had not been produced earlier. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the trial court to proceed with the case further in accordance with the law.
Issues: The main issue was the admissibility of the documents filed by the plaintiff at a later stage of the proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principle that unless serious prejudice is caused to the other side, the documents must be permitted to be produced. However, in this case, the applicant failed to demonstrate the necessity of the documents for the just decision of the case.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the case was directed to proceed further in accordance with the law.
V.K. Ahuja, J.
Petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.VI, Shimla, dated 23.11.2010, whereby the application filed by the respondent/plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC was allowed.
2. A notice of the petition was issued to the respondents.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case.
4. A perusal of the record shows that the suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from alienating, in any manner, the suit property, as detailed in the plaint, was filed by the plaintiff. The suit was being contested by defendants No.1 and 2. During the course of proceedings, the case was fixed for rebuttal evidence of the plaintiff and an application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC was filed by the plaintiff to place on record certain documents. The documents in question are certified copy of the jamabandi of some property owned by defendant No.1 and original electricity bill of the property of the defendant. The learned trial Court vide its impugned order had allowed the production of these documents at a later stage when the case was fixed for rebuttal evidence of the plaintiff, hence the present petition.
5. It is clear from a perusal of the impugned order that the learned trial Court had relied upon a judgment of this Court in Braham Dass vs. Onkar Chand and another, 2009(1) Shim.L.C. 339. A perusal of the said judgment shows that the learned Single Judge had observed that until and unless serious prejudice is caused to the other side, the documents must be permitted to be produced. These observations made in the said case are based upon the facts of that case.
6. It is clear from a perusal of the record of the present case that the applicant had not been able to set up a case as to how these documents are necessary for the just decision of the case or why they had not been produced earlier. The case is now fixed for the rebuttal evidence and the documents filed by the plaintiff at such a belated stage cannot be permitted to be taken on record.
7. In view of the above discussion, the petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. A copy of this judgment alongwith the record of the case be sent to the learned trial Court, who shall proceed with the case further in accordance with law. Parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 9.5.2011.
8. The petition stands disposed of accordingly, so also the pending application(s), if any.
