Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
MISC. PETITION No.3253 of 2019
Between:-
BRAJESH KUMAR, S/O SANTOSH KUMAR
JAISWAL, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: SELF EMPLOYED, R/O
APNA APARTMENT, NEW INDIRA
COLONY,
BURHANPUR,
DISTRICT
BURHANDPUR (M.P.)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SANKALP KOCHAR, ADVOCATE)
AND
1.
SANTOSH KUMAR, S/O SHYAMLALJI,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/O IN MASJID
QUARTER, KILA ROAD, DISTRICT
BURHANPUR (M.P.)
2.
SHAKUNTALA DEVI, W/O SANTOSH KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/O IN MASJID
QUARTER, KILA ROAD, BURHANPUR (M.P.)
3.
SMT. ARTI, W/O KAILASH JAISWAL, AGED
ABOUT 46 YEARS, D/O SANTOSH JAISWAL,
R/O SUDARSHAN COLONY, PLOT NO.8,
DEVPUR, DHULIYA (MAHARASHTRA)
4.
SMT. KAVITA, W/O VIJAY KUMAR JAISWAL,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, D/O SANTOSH
JAISWAL,
R/O
NEAR
CHOURAHA,
AMRAWATI (MAHARASHTRA)
5.
ASHISH, S/O SANTOSH KUMAR JAISWAL,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O IN DORA
MASJID
QUARTER,
KILA
ROAD,
BURHANPUR (M.P.)
6.
SMT. RAJNI, W/O UMESH DHANESHWARI,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O DASHMESH
NAGAR, BEHIND JANTA NAGAR, NEAR
- 2 -
GOVINDNAGAR,
CHANDKHEDA
GANDHINAGAR, AHMADABAD (GUJRAT)
7.
SHAKUNTALA DEVI W/O SHRI SURENDRA
RAI, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O
BUDHWARI BAZAR NEAR RAM MANDIR
CHHINDWARA (MADHYA PRADESH)
8.
ASHOK
KUMAR
S/O
LATE
SHRI
SHYAMLALJI, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O
NAVALKHA COMPLEX BLOCK D FLAT NO 31
INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
9.
SMT VIDYA DEVI W/O SHRI ASHOK KUMAR
R/O NAVALKHA COMPLEX BLOCK D FLAT
NO 31 AND 32 INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
10.
ANIL KUMAR S/O LATE SHYAMLALJI
JAISWAL, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/O
KISHANGANJ INDRAPURI APARTMENT
MHOW DIST INDORE MP (MADHYA
PRADESH)
11.
DELIP KUMAR S/O LATE SHYAMLAL
JAISWAL, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O 502
KANAT ROAD MHOW DISTT INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
12.
SMT VANDANA W/O DILIP KUMAR, AGED
ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O 502 KANAT ROAD
MHOW DISTT INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
13.
SMT SHASHI DEVI W/O SHRI AVINASH
JAISWAL, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O
BADAWADA WADE WALE NEEMACH DISTT
NEEMACH (MADHYA PRADESH)
14.
SMT KIRAN BALA W/O SHRI HEMANT
KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O
VAISHALI NAGAR INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
15.
SHRI
SYED
SHAKEEL, S/O SYED
SHARIFUDDIN, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O
MOHALLA KHANKA WARD TEHSIL AND
DISTT BURHANPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
16.
SAYED AKHTAR ALI S/O MOHAMMAD
MUZZAFFAR, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/O
MOHALLA KHANKA WARD TEHSIL AND
DISTT BURHANPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
- 3 -
17.
TAHSINUDDIN S/O NASEEMUDDIN, AGED
ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O MOHALLA
JAISTAMBH WARD TEHSIL AND DISTT
BURHANPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
18.
ATEEK KHAN S/O RASHEED KHAN, AGED
ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O MOHALLA
CHANDRAKALA TEHSIL AND DISTT
BURHANPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
19.
MUSHTAK KHAN S/O HABIB KHAN, AGED
ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O RAJENDRA PRASAD
WARD TEHSIL AND DISTT BURHANPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
20.
AKEELUDDIN S/O CHIRAGUDDIN AULIYA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O MOHALLA
JAISTAMBH WARD TEHSIL AND DISTT
BURHANPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
21.
GHULAM MEHBOOB S/O MOHAMMAD
CHIRAG, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, MOHALLA
JAISTAMBH WARD TEHSIL AND DISTT
BURHANPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
22.
FAHEEM AKHTAR S/O SAYEED AHMED,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O MOHALLA
JAISTAMBH WARD TEHSIL AND DISTT
BURHANPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
23.
SHAKEEL SAHAB S/O MANJLE SAHAB, AGED
ABOUT 365 YEARS, R/O MOHALLA
JAISTAMBH WARD TEHSIL AND DISTT
BURHANPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
24.
NAGEENLAL S/O ICCHARAM, AGED ABOUT
65 YEARS, R/O ICHCHA BHAWAN VILLAGE
CHOPARA TEHSIL AND DISTT BURHANPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
25.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
COLLECTOR
BURHANPUR
DISTT
BURHANPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
26.
YOGESH S/O RATILAL SHAH, R/O IN FRONT
OF GYANVARDHAN SABHAGRIH RAJPURA
BURHANPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
....RESPONDENTS
- 4 -
(SHRI VIJENDRA SINGH CHOUDHARY, ADVOCATE
FOR 1 & 2 AND SANJIV KUMAR MISHRA, ADVOCATE
FOR RESPONDENT NO.26)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on
:
17.02.2022
Delivered on
:
26.02.2022
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The petitioner-plaintiff is aggrieved by the impugned order dated
25.06.2019 (Annexure P/1), passed by the 1st Additional District Judge,
Burhanpur, RCSA No.2201/2014, whereby, an application of the
petitioner-plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of CPC to take the gift
deed on record has been rejected.
The facts of the case are that the petitioner-plaintiff has filed the
suit claiming the decree of permanent injunction, partition and
separation in relation to the suit property as mentioned in the plaint.
According to the petitioner, his grandfather, namely, Shyamlal was in
joint Hindu family alongwith defendants No.1 to 14. The grandfather
of the petitioner-plaintiff passed away on 02.08.1985 and his wife Tara
Devi passed away on 26.02.1986. Since, no partition had taken place
and various properties were purchased from the fund of the joint
family, therefore, the suit in question was instituted. The issues were
framed on 20.06.2018. The petitioner filed affidavit under Order 18
Rule 4 of the CPC and the evidence was recorded. The petitioner
submits that during the pendency of the civil suit, he got hold of the gift
deed dated 28.09.2012 on 24.06.2019 which shows that certain
properties such as Flat No.D-31 and 32 was gifted out of the joint
family property. Hence, the petitioner filed an application under Order
- 5 -
7 Rule 14(3) of the CPC before the trial Court to take the said gift deed
on record. Learned trial Court vide order dated 25.06.2019 has rejected
the application under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC and hence, the petitioner
is in the instant petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned
order is without any cogent reason. The gift deed in question is
necessary to be considered for the proper and complete adjudication of
the controversy and the learned trial Court has erred in rejecting the
said application merely on the ground that the evidence of the plaintiff
is closed. By placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in
the case of Chakreshwari Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Manoharlal1 and
decision of this court in the matter Sudheer Jain and Others Vs. Sunil
Modi and Others2, he contends that law permits the parties to file
additional evidence on any stage of the trial with the leave of the Court
provided that the case is made out to seek such indulgence and, in the
present case, the petitioner has been able to explain the reasons for
delay, therefore, interference is sought for.
Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the petition and he
submits that the order passed by the learned trial Court is absolutely in
accordance with law. There is no error which would cause miscarriage
of justice and hence, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.
I have perused the order passed by the trial Court which records
the reason for rejecting of application under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC.
The reason assigned by the trial Court is that the suit is pending since
long. The second reason is that after giving repeated opportunities to
the petitioner-plaintiff the evidence was closed. The third reason is that
1
(2017) 5 SCC 212
2
(2019) 3 MPLJ 312
- 6 -
the petitioner-plaintiff has not explained as to why the certified copy of
the said gift deed was not earlier applied. The fourth reason is that the
gift deed sought to be produced has not been shown to be related to the
disputed property.
I have perused the application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of the
CPC which reads as under:
1-
;g fd oknh us ;g okn izfroknhx.k ds fo:) izLrqr fd;k gS@mDr
okn ds pyus ds e/; bl izfroknh dks ;g tkudkjh feyh fd la;qDr ifjokj
dh laifRr bUnkSj fodkl izkf/kdj.k ;kstuk ds varxZr Hkh gS ftlds laca/k esa
tkudkjh fudkys tkus ds i’pkr mDRk la;qDr ifjokj dk laifRr esa bUnkSj
fodkl izkf/kdj.k dh ;kstuk Øekad 31 esa ¶ysV uacj Mh 31 larks"k dqekj
,oe~ ¶ysV uacj 32 Tkks oknh dh cqvk ds uke ls Fks mDr nksuksa ¶ysV es ls
esu ¶ysV larks"k dqekj us nkui= ds }kjk o:.k dqekj dks rFkk 'kdqaryk ckbZ
us nkui= ds }kjk oknh dh pkph fo/;knsoh dks nku ns fn;k gS m
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
