Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
Masood Alam, son of Late Md. Islam – Appellant
Versus
Most. Rabiya Khatoon, wife of Late Md. Islam – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the opposite party Nos.1, 2 and 4.
2. Notice upon the opposite party No.3 is validly served.
3. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order dated 29.04.2024 passed in Original Title (Partition) Suit No.131 of 2021 by learned Civil Judge Senior Division – VI, Jamshedpur whereby the petition filed by the opposite party/plaintiffs under Order 7 Rule 14 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been allowed.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the suit was for partition and the case has proceeded and at one stage of time the petitioner has filed a petition to bring on record certain documents which have been allowed and subsequently the petition filed by the plaintiffs/opposite party taking leave of the Court to bring on record the documents annexed with the said petition. He submits that the disclosure has been made in the written statement to the effect that the said documents are in the possession of the defendants in the plaint and now at belated stage the said pe
Procedural rules serve justice; hence, a trial court may allow late document submissions to avoid denying justice or causing multiplicity of litigation.
Procedural rules must facilitate, not hinder, justice; courts hold discretion to admit relevant documents even if filed late.
Procedural rules must serve justice, allowing document submissions and amendments even with delays, provided they are relevant to the case.
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's decision emphasized that the documents sought to be placed on record were already referred to in the plaint, and the defendants had sufficient opportunity to deal with them, justifying th....
The court upheld that additional evidence in appellate proceedings is only admissible under specific conditions, underscoring the importance of judicial discretion and the res-judicata principle.
Preventing document submission due to delay constitutes injustice; courts should allow evidence while imposing costs for late filings instead of rejecting submissions outright.
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.
The court reaffirmed that the discretion to allow late document production should prioritize substantial justice over procedural technicalities.
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
