The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited, and it cannot correct every error unless it is patently illegal or exceeds jurisdiction.

ORDER

At the joint request of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard.

2. By the instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is questioning validity of the order dated 01.03.2024 (Annexure-P/7) passed by the 2nd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Jabalpur in pending Civil Suit No.187/2018 whereby his application filed under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure for taking several documents on record has been rejected.

3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the application was rejected by the Family Court assigning several reasons, but one of the reasons for rejecting the application is that the application has been filed for taking documents on record and permitting him to lead secondary evidence, but those documents have been filed for the purpose of delaying the proceeding. Shri Agrawal further submits that the Court has rejected the application saying that the application is silent in respect of acquiring those documents and its source and it is also not mentioned in the application as to whether those documents have been compared with the original one or not. Although, he submits that this observation of the Family Court is contrary to law because that stage is yet to come and the petitioner at the time of his statement may disclose all these requirements in his statement, if he is permitted to be recorded and documents are taken on record.

4. Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent on the other hand has opposed the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the suit has been filed in the year 2018 and the statement of plaintiff/petitioner was recorded in January, 2024 and the application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of CPC has been filed in the month of February, 2024 after recording the statement of the petitioner. He has submitted that there were number of documents and those are the photocopies relating to the medical treatment of respondent/wife and as per the documents it can be seen that those were old one and they could have been produced at the time of evidence of the petitioner/plaintiff. He has further submitted that in the application nothing has been disclosed as to why those documents could not be produced at the time of recording his statement. He has submitted that the Court itself has taken note of the fact that the documents which are sought to be taken on record are not relevant for proper adjudication of the case because the case has been filed seeking decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty, but there was no such pleading about the mental and physical status of the respondent/wife and as such, those documents are not relevant for proper adjudication of the case. He has also submitted that the petitioner has also not disclosed the reason for not producing those documents on earlier occasion whereas it is requirement of law and the respective provision i.e. Order 7 Rule 14(3) very specifically provides so. The counsel for the respondent has relied upon a judgment reported in (2010) 8 SCC 329 parties being Shalini Shyam Shetty and another Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil saying that the Supreme Court has observed that exercising the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, even the erroneous order cannot be corrected by the Court unless it is patently illegal and passed by the Court exceeding its jurisdiction.

5. I have heard the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, especially the application submitted that the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of CPC and the list of document which was to be taken on record and the permission sought for to lead secondary evidence on the basis of those documents.

6. Indisputably, the application filed by the petitioner is very sketchy and it does not disclose any reason as to why those documents could not be produced on earlier occasion. It also does