Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE
ANIL VERMA, J.
Satyanarayan Paliwal – Appellant
Versus
Mukesh Patel and others – Respondents
Miscellaneous Petition No.633 of 2021
Decided on : 08-10-2021
Order 7 Rule 14 - Civil Suit - Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC - The court discussed the relevance of Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC and emphasized that documents not part of the pleadings and not on record cannot be considered. The court also cited the limited scope of interference in proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as established in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil (2010) 8 SCC 329, and highlighted the principles for exercise of High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a civil suit for specific performance of a sale agreement. The petitioner moved an application under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC to bring on record certain documents, which was rejected by the court below. The petitioner sought to set aside the impugned order and have the application accepted.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the application under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC was filed at a belated stage, and the documents in question were not part of the pleadings or on record. The court also emphasized the limited scope of interference in proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Issues: The main issue was the rejection of the petitioner's application under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC and the petitioner's plea to set aside the impugned order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that documents not part of the pleadings and not on record cannot be considered, and cited the limited scope of interference in proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the trial court was directed to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within 6 months. The petitioner was also allowed to raise the ground in the present petition while preferring an appeal.
ORDER :
The petitioner has filed this present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India feeling aggrieved by the impugned order dated 04.02.2021 passed by 4th Additional District Judge, Mandsaur in RCS No.6-A/2013 whereby an application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC has been rejected.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition is that the plaintiff/petitioner filed a civil suit before the competent jurisdiction of civil court for specific performance of sale agreement dated 08.08.2008 regarding the sale of disputed land bearing survey No.692, area 0.052 hectare and survey No.694 area 0.773 hectare situated at Mandsaur.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner/plaintiff had moved an application under Order 7 Rule 14 of C.P.C. for bringing on record the documents dated 15.10.2010, which had been written by the defendant. He contended that regarding sale of agreement, the defendant did not clear his stand and not stated before the Court below, therefore, the said document is relevant and necessary for the adjudication of the dispute, but the court below has rejected his application. The trial court has failed to consider proper proposition of law and rejected the application on the ground of inordinate delay being caused in filing the application. In above circumstances, he prays that the impugned order dated 04.02.2021 be set aside and his application under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC be accepted and the concerned documents be also taken on record.
4. On the other hand, the respondents have supported the impugned order and stated that the application was filed for taking the documents on record without any viable reason for the inordinate delay, hence, the petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. From bare perusal of the record of the court below, it is apparently clear that the civil suit is pending for consideration since 2013 and at the stage of defendant's evidence, the petitioner has filed the application under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC. The Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC is required to be seen which reads as under:-
(1) Where a plaintiff sues upon a document or relies upon document in his possession or power in support of his claim, he shall enter such documents in a list, and shall produce it in Court when the plaint is presented by him and shall, at the same time deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the plaint.
(2) Where any such document is not in the possession or power of the plaintiff, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose possession or power it is.
(3) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the plaintiff when the plaint is presented, or to be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint but is not produced or entered accordingly, shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit.
(4) Nothing in this rule shall apply to document produced for the cross examination of the plaintiff's witnesses, or, handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.”
7. The petitioner has filed the application under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC at a belated stage i.e. at the stage of defendant's evidence. It is settled principle of law that the documents, which are not part of the pleadings and the documents which are not on record and exhibited cannot be taken into consideration while deciding the civil suit. The petitioner did not mention anything regarding the documents which are mentioned in the list of documents filed along with the said application. In his plaint, even he has not produced any evidence regarding the aforesaid documents in the plaintiff's evidence. In the application filed by the petitioner, no reason has been assigned for filing the application at the belated stage of trial.
8. In the pres
Documents not part of the pleadings and not on record cannot be considered in a civil suit, and the scope of interference in proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is limited.
(1) High Court has to exercise its supervisory powers sparingly and in appropriate cases to keep subordinate Courts in their authority. (2) Where a suit is based on documents, furnishing of copy of d....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the scope of Article 227 does not warrant interference with the impugned order, and that the Original Side Rules do not apply to the case.
The court upheld the trial court's rejection of applications for document production and witness recall due to lack of demonstrated relevance and procedural compliance.
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.
A plaintiff cannot arbitrarily place on record documents that should have been produced at the time of filing the plaint, and the court will consider the reasons for not filing the documents earlier.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power under Article-227 of the Constitution of India should be exercised sparingly and only in cases of grave injustice or failure of just....
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
