Back
2015 Supreme(MP) 472
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT GWALIOR BENCH
Sujoy Paul, J.
Pawan Kumar Pathak - Appellant
Versus
Mohan Prasad - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 1760-15
Decided On : 15-04-2015
For the Petitioner:D.D. Bansal and Abhishek Bhadoria, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Santosh Agrawal, Advocate.
Headnote:(1) Civil P.C., 1908 -- O.13 R.4 -- admissibility of document -- suit for declaration and injunction -- adoption deed submitted by petitioner-plaintiff taken on record -- where evidence recorded by Commissioner -- it is open to record objection raised about admissibility and tentatively mark document as “exhibit” -- decision on said objection must be taken by Court at earliest -- Court below adopted same procedure which is in consonance with law -- no procedural propriety found in impugned order -- there is no factual foundation about said adoption -- Court below rightly refused to admit adoption deed.
Held : It is clear that in civil matters, the objection aforesaid needs to be decided at the earliest and preferably before it is marked as an exhibit. In order to avoid confusion, it is made clear that in cases where evidence is recorded by Commissioner, it will be open for Commissioner to record the objection raised about admissibility of the document and tentatively mark the document as “exhibit”. Decision on said objection must be taken by the Court at the earliest. In the present case, the Court below has adopted the same procedure which is in consonance with law. 2009(2) AIR (Bom.) 296 relied on. (2003)6 SCC 641, (2001)2 SCC 65, AIR 2010 Del. 1 and AIR 1995 Bom. 333 distinguished.
(2) Civil P.C., 1908 -- O.6 R.2 and O.6 R.17 -- amendment application filed by petitioner -- disallowed by giving specific finding that it will tentamount to fill-up lacuna of evidence -- petitioner realised that there exists a need of specific pleading regarding said adoption deed -- order has attained finality -- application rightly dismissed.
Held : This Court opined that the stand of the petitioner is inconsistent in nature. His earlier plea was different and he made an effort to fill up the lacuna of the evidence. Thus, his amendment application was disallowed. This clearly shows that even petitioner realised that there exists a need of specific pleading regarding the said adoption deed. However, said after thought of the petitioner and amendment was disallowed by giving a specific finding that it will tantamount to fill up the lacuna of the evidence. This order has attained finality. AIR 1968 SC 1083 followed.
(3) Civil P.C., 1908 -- O.47 R.1 -- petitioner cannot be permitted to re-argue and reagitate matter -- he made an effort to fill-up lacuna of evidence -- no error apparent on face of record -- putting it differently he could not satisfy necessary ingredients for invoking review jurisdiction of trial Court -- no interference is required on this aspect -- Court below has taken a legal and plausible view -- Court below rightly rejected application by second impugned order.
Held : Under the garb of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to re-argue and reagitate the matter. There was no error apparent on the face of the record. Putting it differently, the petitioner could not satisfy the necessary ingredients for invoking review jurisdiction of the trial Court. Thus, no interference is required on this aspect. As analyzed above, Court below has taken a legal and plausible view.
(4) Constitution of India -- Art.227 -- scope of interference is limited -- basic purpose of exercising said jurisdiction is to keep Courts below within bounds of their authority -- interference can be made sparingly for said purpose and not for correcting error of facts and law in a routine manner -- another ground is possible, is not a ground for interference -- no ingredient on which interference can be made in this petition -- petition dismissed. (2010)8 SCC 329 followed. [Para 20
¼1½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && vk-13 fu-4 && nLrkost dh xzkárk && ?kks"k.kk rFkk O;kns'k ds fy, okn && ;kph/oknh }kjk izLrqr nÙkd foys[k vfHkys[k ij fy;k x;k && tgk¡ lk{; dfe'uj }kjk vfHkfyf[kr dh tkrh gS && ;g xzkárk ds ckjs esa mBk, x, vk{ksi rFkk izk;ksfxd rkSj ij nLrkost ij ßizn'kZÞ fpUgkafdr djus ds fy, [kqyk gS && U;k;ky; }kjk dfFkr vk{ksi ij 'kh?kz fofu'p; fd;k tkuk pkfg, && fupys U;k;ky; }kjk ogh izfØ;k vaxhÑr dh xbZ tks fd fof/k ds vuq:i gS && vk{ksfir vkns'k esa dksbZ izfØ;kRed vukSfpR; ugha ik;k x;k && dfFkr nÙkd ds ckjs esa dksbZ rF;kRed vk/kkj ugha && fupys U;k;ky; }kjk nÙkd foys[k dks xzg.k djus ls Bhd gh bUdkj fd;kA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % ;g Li"V gS fd flfoy ekeyksa esa iwoZdfFkr vk{ksi 'kh?kz fu.khZr fd, tkus dh vko';drk gS rFkk vf/kekuh :i ls bls ßizn'kZÞ fpfUgr fd, tkus ds iwoZ Hkze dk ifjotZu djus ds Øe esa] ;g Li"V fd;k tkrk gS fd,sls ekeyksa esa tgk¡ lk{; dfe'uj }kjk vfHkfyf[kr dh tkrh gS] dfe'uj ds fy, nLrkost dh xzkárk ds ckjs esa mBk;k x;k vk{ksi vfHkfyf[kr djuk rFkk izk;ksfxd rkSj ij nLrkost ßizn'kZÞ fpfUgr djuk [kqyk jgsxkA dfFkr vk{ksi ij U;k;ky; }kjk 'kh?kz fd;k tkuk pkfg,A orZeku ekeys esa fupys U;k;ky; }kjk ogh izfØ;k vaxhÑr dh gS tks fd fof/k ds vuq:i gSA 2009¼2½, vkb vkj ¼ckWEcs½ 296 voyafcrA ¼2003½6,l lh lh 641] ¼2001½2,l lh lh 65], vkb vkj 2010 fnYyh 1 rFkk, vkb vkj 1995 ckWEcs 333 izHksfnrA
¼2½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && vk-6 fu-2 rFkk vk-8 fu-17 && ;kph }kjk la'kks/ku vkosnu izLrqr && fofufnZ"V fu"d"kZ nsrs gq, ukeatwj fd;k x;k fd ;g lk{; dh deh dks iwjk djus ds rqY; gksxk && ;kph dks vuqHkwfr gqbZ fd dfFkr nÙkd foys[k ds lacaèk esa fofufnZ"V vfHkopu dh vko';drk fo|eku gS && vkns'k vafrerk izkIr dj pqdk && vkosnu Bhd&gh [kkfjt fd;k x;kA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % bl U;k;ky; ds vfHker esa ;kph dk vk/kkj izÑfr ds vu:i gS] mldk izkjafHkd rdZ fHkUu Fkk rFkk mlus lk{; dh deh dks iwjk djus dk iz;kl fd;kA bl izdkj mldk la'kks/ku vkosnu ukeatwj fd;k x;kA ;g Li"V nf'kZr djrk gS fd ;kph dks Hkh vuqHkwfr gqbZ fd dfFkr nÙkd foys[k ds laca/k esa fofufnZ"V vfHkopu dh vko';drk fo|eku gSA fQj Hkh] dfFkr ;kph ds fopkjksijkar rFkk ;g fofufnZ"V fu"d"kZ nsrs gq, la'kks/ku ukeatwj fd;k x;k fd ;g lk{; dh deh dks iwjk djus ds rqY; gksxkA ;g vkns'k vafrerk izkIr dj pqdkA, vkb vkj 1968,l lh 1083 vuqlfjrA
¼3½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && vk-47 fu-1 && ;kph dks ekeys dks iqu% mBkus rFkk iqu% rdZ djus ds fy, vuqKk ugha nh tk ldrh && mlus lk{; dh deh dks iwjk djus dk iz;kl fd;k && vfHkys[k ij dksbZ =qfV izdV ugha && bldks fHkUu izdkj ls j[krs gq, og fopkj.k U;k;ky; dh iqufoZyksdu vf/kdkfjrk dk vkJ; ysus ds fy, vko';d la?kVdksa dk lek/kku ugha dj ldk && bl igyw ij dksbZ gLr{ksi vko';d ugha && fupys U;k;ky; us fof/kd rFkk ;qfDr;qDr fopkj fd;k gS && fupys U;k;ky; us f}rh; vk{ksfir vkns'k }kjk Bhd&gh vkosnu [kkfjt fd;kA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % iqufoZyksdu ds v/khu] ;kph dks ekeys dks iqu% mBkus rFkk iqu% rdZ djus ds fy, vuqKk ugha nh tk ldrhA vfHkys[k ij dksbZ =qfV izdV ughaA bldks fHkUu izdkj ls j[krs gq,] ;kph fopkj.k U;k;ky; dh iqufoZyksdu vfèkdkfjrk dk vkJ; ds fy, vko';d la?kVdksa dk lek/kku ugha dj ldkA bl izdkj] bl igyw ij dksbZ gLr{ksi vko';d ughaA tSlk fd Åij fo'ys"k.k fd;k x;k] fupys U;k;ky; us fof/kd rFkk ;qfDr;qDr fopkj fd;k gSA
¼4½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq-227 && gLr{ksi dh O;kfIr lhfer gS && dfFkr vfèkdkfjrk dk iz;ksx djus dk ewy iz;kstu fupys U;k;ky;ksa dks muds izkf/kdkjksa dh lhek ds Hkhrj j[kuk gS && dfFkr iz;kstu ds fy, gLr{ksi vi;kZIr :i ls fd;k tk ldrk gS rFkk rF; rFkk fof/k dh =qfV dh jkst ds O;ogkj esa =qfV Bhd djus ds fy, ugha && ßvU; vkèkkj laHko gSÞ] gLr{ksi djus ds fy, vk/kkj ugha && dksbZ la?kVd ugha ftl ij bl ;kfpdk esa gLr{ksi fd;k tk lds && ;kfpdk [kkfjtA ¼2010½ 8,l lh lh 329 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 20
Sujoy Paul, J.
1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 25.2.2015 whereby the objection of the respondent/defendant (Annexure P-14) is allowed by the Court below.
2. The order dated 10.3.2015 (Annexure P-2) is also called in question whereby the application of the petitioner preferred under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is rejected by the Court below. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. During the pendency of the suit, an amendment application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was filed contending that the plaintiff is adopted son of late Shri Heeralal Pathak. The said amendment application was disallowed by the trial court. The said order was put to test before this Court in W.P. No. 7500/10. This court by order dated 17.11.2011 (Annexure P-7) dismissed the said writ petition. The petitioner made an unsuccessful effort to review that order by filing review petition No. 27/11 (Annexure P-7A). Yet another review 34/11 was filed which was disposed of on 9.2.2011 (Annexure P-7B). In this order, this Court gave liberty to the petitioner to raise objection in the appeal if suit is dismissed by the trial court. The said liberty was given on the basis of present petitioner's prayer seeking liberty to raise objection in appeal if the judgment of trial court goes against him. On the strength of this liberty, it is contended by the petitioner that at appellate stage the petitioner will be at liberty to raise objection regarding the order of the trial court rejecting the amendment application. If at appellate stage petitioner's objections are sustained, the effect will be of allowing of the said amendment application. At that point, since the document is not taken on record and admitted in evidence, it will be a case where there will be pleading but without there being any evidence. It is contended that the Court below itself by order dated 19.11.2010 (para 17) had taken the said document (adoption deed dated 29.3.1973) on record. Thereafter, the plaintiff witness Shri Mohanlal Swarnakar was examined before the Commissioner vide Annexure P-12 dated 16.1.2015. In his deposition, the said adoption deed was exhibited as P32-C. Once the said document is taken on record and is also marked as exhibit, at later point of time, neither that document can be thrown out of record, nor it can be refused to be taken as an evidence.
3. To bolster the aforesaid submission, it is contended that the court below has erred in not taking such document on record. The proper course would have been to keep this issue of admissibility of this document alive till final decision of the matter. In support of this, reliance is placed on (2001) 2 SCC 65 (Bipin Shantilal Panchal Vs. State of Gujarat and another). The judgment of Delhi High Court reported in AIR 2010 Delhi page 1 (Coca Cola India Vs. C.P. Malik) is also relied upon. By placing reliance on Bombay High Court decision in AIR 1995 Bombay 333) Appa Babaji Misal Patil and others Vs. Dagdu Chandru Misal, since deceased by his heirs Naginbai Dagadu Misal Etc. Etc. And others), it is contended that the court below has erred in rejecting the said document. In nutshell, the argument of the petitioner is that the petitioner has pleaded that he is owner of the property. The mode by which he became owner is a question of evidence which can be substantiated by leading evidence but court below was not justified in rejecting the document at this stage.
4. Per contra, Shri Santosh Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent, supported the impugned order. It is contended that the pleadings clearly show that there is no averment about the existence of the said adoption deed. In absence of pleadings, no evidence can be permitted to be lead. By placing reliance on order 6 Rule 2 CPC, it is contended that petitioner was required to plead material facts. On the basis of material facts and the stand tak
