The court emphasized that documents not presented at the initiation of a suit cannot be accepted later without adequate reason, especially after a significant delay.

CAV ORDER

Plaintiff is before this Court in this writ petition, assailing the legality and correctness of the order dated 02.02.2022 passed in O.S.No.07/2011 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Maddur (for short, 'the trial Court').

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their ranks before the trial Court.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

4. Brief facts of the case are as follows:

The plaintiff who is the owner in possession of Schedule A, B, and C properties, filed O.S.No.55/2005 before the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) Malavalli, for declaration and permanent injunction against defendant restraining him from interfering with the lawful enjoyment of suit schedule properties. However, the case was transferred to Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) for the want of pecuniary jurisdiction and the same was decreed by Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) by Order dated 06.02.2006. The decree became final. However, when the plaintiff had gone to other city for his daughter’s medical treatment, the defendant by taking advantage, has put up 02 shops and 12 stone pillars in the ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule properties. Hence petitioner filed the suit O.S.No.07/2011 for mandatory injunction to demolish the structure and remove pillars.

5. As the defendant had filed written statement, plaintiff was constrained to file an application under Order VII Rule 14(3) read with Section 151 to rebut the same. The trial court, after hearing both the sides, dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner/plaintiff approached this court.

6. The counsel for the petitioner would contend that the trail Court failed to apply sub-rule (3) of Rule 14 of Order VII in its strict sense. It was also contended that the application was filed to rebut the evidence and documents produced by the defendant.

7. It was further contended that granting of leave is purely procedural by relying upon the judgment of Bombay High Court in Mohan Raj vs Keval Chand (AIR 2007 Bombay 69), and judgment of Himachal Pradesh High Court in Balwant Kaur vs Kailash Behle , (AIR 2003 HP 48), it was contended that document sought to rebut cannot be refused and therefore, the trail court ought to have allowed the application. The other contention that was raised was that the impugned order is non- speaking order and therefore, it is illegal and unsustainable in law.

8. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondent would contend that no valid grounds had been made out to file the application and it was further contended that the petitioner had not satisfied the ingredients of Order VII Rule 14(3) of CPC and for a period of 14 years, plaintiff has not taken any steps to produce the alleged documents. Hence, at the belated stage, the application cannot be allowed. In fact, during the course of oral evidence, he has not at all whispered anything about the documents mentioned in the alleged documents.

9. It was also contended that the application was filed after the completion of evidence and no application was filed to recall PW.1 and reopen the plaintiff’s evidence and therefore, application is liable to be dismissed.

10. Heard the both counsel, perused the material placed before this Court. It is observed that the petitioner filed the application under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) read with section 151 of CPC. The provision reads as follows :

“(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.”

11. While