The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by orders

dated 22.12.2021 and 13.01.2022, whereby the trial Court has directed

the defendants to file translated copy of Exhibit-D/3 in Hindi and

English and also observed that the plaintiff shall have the right for

cross-examination of translation.

2.

The petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent

injunction in respect of the immovable property described in Para-2 of

the plaint. Both the parties placed their evidence and the suit was fixed

for final argument. On 22.01.2022, the counsel for the defendants

submitted that exhibit-D/3 is a document of the year 1912 which is 30

years old, therefore, it can be read into the evidence. The learned trial

court found that the document is written in language, not known to the

parties as well as to the Court. Therefore, the final argument was

deferred and parties were directed to suggest the common name of the

translator. Since the consensus did not arrive, therefore, the Court

directed the defendants to file translated copy of exhibit-D/3 in Hindi

as well as English language and gave a right to the plaintiff to cross-

examine the translator if not satisfied with the translation.

3.

Thereafter, the defendants filed an application under Section

151 of the C.P.C. which was taken up on 13.01.2022. The said

application was opposed by the plaintiff and again Court passed the

same order permitting defendants to file translated copy of the Exibit

D-3. Hence, this petition has been filed before this Court challenging

the orders dated 22.12.2021 and 13.01.2022.

4.

Shri Rohit Kumar Mangal, learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that there is a specific provision under Order XIII Rule 7 Sub-

Rule 3 of the C.P.C. (Madhya Pradesh State amendment) to deal with

this type of situation in the pending suit and according to which every

document produced in evidence which is not written either in the

Court’s language or English, shall be accompanied by a correct

translation into English. If the document is admitted in the exhibit, the

opposite party shall either admit the correctness of the translation or

submit his own translation. It is further submitted by the learned

counsel when Exhibit.D-3 was tendered into evidence, the defendants

ought to have filed an English translation of the said document. When

this document was confronted with the witness of the defendants in

respect of the credibility of that document, a witness (DW) stated that

he can not read the language in which it is written. Since the

defendants in their evidence shown an inability to read that document,

hence according to Shri Mangal, learned counsel for the petitioner, the

translation cannot be taken on record at the stage of final arguments.

The learned Court has travelled beyond its jurisdiction by directing

defendants to submit translations. The procedure prescribed under the

law if not followed and any deviation amounts would lead to a

miscarriage of justice. To support this contention, the learned counsel

has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by Apex Court in the

case of LIC of India Vs. Ram Pal Singh Bisen (2010) 4 SCC 491 .

This judgment is also cited on the point that mere filing or exhibiting

of a document in Court does not amount to proof of its contents,

therefore, even if the document has been marked as exhibit-D/3, the

contents cannot be treated as proved.

5.

Shri Zelawat learned, Senior counsel for respondent No. 3

submits that the Court has not committed any error of law while

permitting defendants to produce the translation which is a mandatory

requirement under Order XIII Rule 5 Sub-Section 3 of the CPC. In

support of his contention, the learned Senior Advocate has placed

reliance on the judgment passed by Apex Court in the case of

Chandreshwar Bhuthnath Devansthan Vs. Baboy Matiram

Varenkar (2018) 12 SCC 548 that even an application under Order

XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not required for

submitti