Point of law: Invoking supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India – Filing of additional documents at the time of arguments, held cannot be allowed at the stage of arguments.

ORDER :

An application moved by defendants No.1 to 7 under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) seeking to produce certain additional documents at the stage of arguments was dismissed by the learned Trial Court on 04.03.2013. This order has been questioned by the defendants by invoking supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. Before proceeding further, it will be appropriate to describe status of parties before the learned Trial Court alongwith gist of the case.

2(i)(a). Set No.1 (Plaintiffs):-

Jagir Singh and Chanan Singh, both sons of Jawahar Singh, were the predecessors-in-interest of the following plaintiffs, namely:-

1. Mahinder Kaur W/o Ajayab Singh

2. Chander Singh S/o Jagir Singh

3. Pritam Singh S/o Jagir Singh

4. Mahinder Singh S/o Jagir Singh

5. Bhupinder Singh S/o Jagir Singh

6. Sukhdev Singh S/o Jagir Singh

7. Pritam Kaur D/o Jagir Singh

8. Mohinder Kaur S/o Jagir Singh

Suit was filed by the above plaintiffs pleading that their predecessors-in-interest were owners in possession of the land bearing Khasra Nos.40, 41, 64, 65 Kite 4, total measuring 32-5 bighas, situated in Mauza Ghuttunpur, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour. They had mortgaged the suit land with possession in favour of predecessors of defendants No.8 to 18 (Set No.2).

2(i)(b). Set No.2 (Defendants No.8 to 18):-

Jagir Singh and Chanan Singh (predecessors-in-interest of set No.1) had mortgaged the suit land to set No.2 as under:-

(i) Amar Singh S/o Chuhar Singh

(ii) Hazor Singh S/o Chuhar Singh Both predecessors in interest of defendants No.8 to 18 namely:-

8. Rupinder Singh

9. Smt. Rano

10. Smt. Kamaljeet Kaur

11. Smt. Baljeet Kaur

12. Smt. Niranjan Kaur

13. Smt. Amarjeet Kaur

14. Smt. Jas Kaur

15. Smt. Ishwar Kaur

16. Sangat Singh

17. Surjeet Singh

18. Smt. Taran Kaur

Plaintiffs’ further contention in the civil suit was that Gulzar Singh, the predecessor-in-interest of defendants No.1 to 7 (Set No.3) purchased mortgagees’ rights over the suit land by paying mortgage debt/money amounting to Rs.466/- vide registered deed No.86 on 08.06.1951. Thus, Gulzar Singh became mortgagee with possession vide mutation No.104, dated 09.08.1951, i.e. the date he entered on the possession of the suit land.

2(i)(c). Set No.3 (Defendants No.1 to 7):-

Mortgagees’ rights over the suit land were purchased by Gulzar Singh, predecessor-in-interest of defendants No.1 to 7, namely:-

1. Santa Singh S/o Gulzar Singh

2. Harbhajan Kaur D/o Gulzar Singh

3. Krishan Kaur D/o Gulzar Singh

4. Amarjeet Singh, GS of Gulzar Singh

5. Surjeet Singh, GS of Gulzar Singh

6. Harjeet Singh S/o Lakhbir Singh

7. Kamaljeet Kaur W/o Lakhbir Singh

2(i)(d). The case of the plaintiffs was that set No.3 (defendants No.1 to 7) had earned many times more profit than the mortgaged money from the mortgaged land. Set No.3 was not entitled to any more amount at the time of restoration of possession of the suit land to the plaintiffs (set No.1) as per Section 8 of the Himachal Pradesh Debt Reduction Act, 1976 (in short ‘Debt Act’). That there was no limitation under the Debt Act for redemption of mortgage and redeeming the property. That mortgage could be redeemed at any time under the said Act. The mortgaged amount paid by set No.3 to set No.2, the mortgage debt of plaintiffs (set No.1), falls under the definition of loan under the Debt Act. The plaintiffs also alleged that cause of action had accrued to them from the date of execution of the mortgage deed/attestation of mutation, i.e. 08.06.1951 and 09.08.1951, respectively. It was stated to be continuing at the time of filing of the civil suit on 21.05.2007. With these basic averments, the plaintiffs filed the civil suit seeking decree for restoration of possession of the suit land measuring 32-5 bighas as described above. In the alternative, a decree for possession on the strength of title was also prayed for.

2(ii). In the written statement filed on behalf of Set No.3, preliminary objections of suit being barred by limit