The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for documents to be relevant to the issues involved in the suit and the need for the plaintiff to prepare a list and produce all documents with the plaint.

JUDGMENT :

Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J.

1. The present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been maintained by the petitioner, who was the plaintiff before the learned trial Court (hereinafter to be called as "the plaintiff") against the order dated 16.08.2018, passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Court No. 2, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. in CMA No. 356/6 of 2018, in Civil Suit No. 77/1 of 2011, whereby the application, under Order 7, Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, filed by the plaintiff was rejected.

2. Briefly stating the facts, giving rise to the present petition are that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the respondents/defendants (hereinafter to be called as "the defendants") and during the pendency of the suit the plaintiff filed an application under Order 7, Rule 14 CPC to bring on record and prove an application filed by defendants No. 1, 2 and 4 for partition of the property before the learned Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur to show the greediness and malafide intention of the defendants.

3. The application filed by the plaintiff was contested by the defendants by filing reply, wherein it has been averred that in the written statement it is clearly mentioned that defendant No. 1 is son of Sh. Pohlo and the plaintiff in para 7 has clearly pleaded that it is the plaintiff and defendants No. 6 to 9 who had succeeded Smt. Duhri Devi, who died issue-less. So, the plaintiff and defendants No. 6 to 9 could not be her class-1 heirs, as such, the plaintiff cannot deprive any benefit by producing the copy of objection submitted by defendants No. 1 to 4. It has been further averred in the reply that defendant No. 1 was not born out of the genes of Sh. Pohlo and Smt. Fimmo, but when he was a kid, he was handed over to Smt. Duhri Devi, so, he used to consider her like mother. Lastly, it has been averred that the present application has been filed just to delay the matter and the objections are not essential for proper adjudication of the matter and prayer for dismissal of the application has been made. The learned trial Court vide order dated 16.08.2018, dismissed the application so filed by the plaintiff. Therefore, aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner/ plaintiff approached this Court by way of present petition.

4. Mr. Ajay Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued that the learned Court below has committed jurisdictional error in not allowing the application to produce on record the document. He has further argued that since the document was necessary for proper adjudication of the case, the present petition may be allowed and the document may be ordered to be placed on record. In support of his contentions, Mr. Ajay Kumar, learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance upon the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kailash vs. Nanhku and Others, (2005) 4 SCC 480.

5. On the Other hand, Mr. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has argued that it is nowhere of the case of the defendant/petitioner that he is inheriting on the basis of natural succession and in these circumstances, the document which the applicant wanted to produce on record cannot be produced on record. He has further argued that the document was in possession of the petitioner in the year 2016 and there is no reason why it was not placed on record uptill 2018, so in these circumstances, the present application deserves dismissal. In support of his contentions, learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance upon the following judicial pronouncements of this Hon'ble High Court:-

(1) Jeet Lal vs. Kamaljeet Singh and Others, (2016) 1 HLR 6

(2) Piar Chand vs. Deepika and Others, (2017) 1 HLR 23

(3) Prem Lal vs. Sh. Rajinder Kumar, (2018) Latest HLJ 188 (HP)

6. To appreciate the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the entire record in detail.

7. The document which