The trial court must afford due opportunities to the parties to contest the case and cannot adopt an extremely harsh and hyper-technical approach in rejecting applications for taking documents on record and granting time to adduce evidence.

ORDER :

PRANAY VERMA, J.

Heard.

By this petition, preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners/plaintiffs have challenged the order dated 10.05.2024 passed by the trial Court whereby their application under Order 7 Rule 14 of the CPC for taking documents on record has been rejected and so also has their application under Order 17 Rule 1 of the CPC for grant of time. Consequently, the right of the plaintiffs to adduce evidence has been closed.

02. From a perusal of the record of the case, it is seen that the suit has been instituted by the plaintiffs on or about 22.02.2023. The written statement of the defendants was filed on 26.09.2023 after which the issues have been framed on 24.11.2023. Thereafter, the case was fixed for recording of plaintiffs' evidence and plaintiff has examined one witness on their part after which the case was fixed for recording of their further evidence.

03. On 10.05.2024 an application under Order 7 Rule 14 of the CPC was filed by the plaintiffs for taking certain documents on record which has been rejected only on the ground that no reason has been given as to why the documents could not be produced earlier and at the time of filing of the suit. The said approach of the trial Court in my opinion is extremely harsh and hyper-technical. The evidence of the plaintiffs was in progress and it is not a case where the suit is an old one but has been instituted in 2023 itself. The relevance or importance of the documents sought to be produced by the plaintiffs has wholly been omitted to be considered by the trial Court which has rejected the application observing that plaintiffs are attempting to prolong their case. There does not appear to be any reason as to why the plaintiffs would do so. The documents if are brought on record would be helpful for a fair and complete determination of the dispute between the parties but have illegally been declined to be taken on record which is erroneous.

04. Subsequently, on 10.05.2024 itself the plaintiffs filed an application under Order 17 Rule 1 of the CPC for grant of time to them to adduce further evidence which has been rejected on the ground that on the previous date of hearing last opportunity had already been granted to the plaintiffs for the said purpose.

05. The order-sheets of the case show that the trial Court is proceeding in a totally unjustified and hasty manner without making any real effort to afford due opportunities to the parties to contest the same. It is not a case where the plaintiffs have repeatedly been granted time to adduce their evidence. On the contrary, one witness has already been examined by them after which they filed an application for taking documents on record. The reason as was assigned by the plaintiffs for grant of time to them to adduce evidence has not even been taken into consideration by the trial Court which has only considered the fact that on the last date last opportunity had been granted. Such an approach cannot be approved in any manner.

06. Consequently, the impugned order passed by the trial Court is set aside. The application under Order 7 Rule 14 of the CPC filed by the plaintiffs is allowed and the documents filed along with the same are taken on record. Plaintiffs are granted opportunity to adduce their evidence which shall be done by them on the next date of hearing fixed before the trial Court.

07. With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands allowed and disposed off.