IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH

th

ON THE 16 OF JANUARY, 2026 MISC. PETITION No. 2116 of 2022 GAURAV KHANDELWAL Versus GWALIOR YOUNG MENS CLUB (GYMC) SANATAN DHARM MANDIR ROAD NEAR ACHLESHWAR MANDIR LASHKAR GWALIOR THR. AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Nikhil Rai- learned Counsel for petitioner- defendant No. 1.

Shri Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi- learned Counsel for respondent No.1-

plaintiff.

ORDER The present Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by the petitioner, Defendant No.1 in the original suit, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 19.04.2022 passed by the XV Additional District Judge, Gwalior in RCS No. 8-A of 2016 whereby the petitioner’s application under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), seeking permission to present and refer to a copy of the tender quotation dated

28.10.2003 during cross-examination of its witness, has been rejected. 2. A few facts giving rise to present petition are that the respondent No.1, Plaintiff, filed a suit seeking a declaration that the lease deed dated 18.05.2007 is null and void, along with relief of permanent injunction. Petitioner filed a written statement with a counterclaim seeking specific performance of lease deed and agreement. Based on the pleadings, the learned trial Court framed issues and fixed the case for evidence. Plaintiff’s evidence has been completed, and case was fixed for defendant’s evidence. During chief examination of petitioner’s witness, Madan Mohan Khandelwal, plaintiff’s counsel questioned the witness regarding lease deed, specifically about the absence of a provision for payment of rent. The witness responded that rent provisions are mentioned in Clause 15 of lease deed and Clause 25 of the tender quotation dated 28.10.2003. The original tender quotation is in the possession of plaintiff. Petitioner sought to present a copy of the tender quotation to respond to this question, but plaintiff’s counsel objected. Consequently, petitioner filed an application under Section 151 CPC seeking permission to present the document. The trial Court rejected this application, holding that a similar application was previously filed by the petitioner and was dismissed on 04.11.2018 due to the inordinate delay in seeking the document, which had been in the plaintiff’s possession since the proceedings began in 2008.

3. It is contended on behalf of petitioner that the order impugned dated

19.04.2022 is illegal and contrary to law. It was argued that the learned trial Court failed to consider the real controversy, namely, that plaintiff deliberately withheld the tender quotation, preventing the petitioner’s witness from responding fully during cross-examination. The tender quotation is an important document for the adjudication of matter and the prior rejection of application should not bar its consideration now. Hence, prayed for setting aside the impugned order by allowing the application filed under Section 151 of CPC.

4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 opposed the contentions raised by the petitioner and supported the impugned order dated 19.04.2022 passed by the XV Additional District Judge, Gwalior. It was submitted that the petitioner had previously filed a similar application for the production of the tender quotation dated 28.10.2003, which was dismissed by the trial Court on account of inordinate delay. The present application under Section 151 CPC is a mere attempt by the petitioner to prolong the proceedings unnecessarily, despite the fact that the original tender quotation is in the possession of the plaintiff. The trial Court correctly observed that the petitioner has failed to provide any sufficient justification for seeking to present the document at this belated stage, more than a decade after the initiation of the proceedings. Hence, the impugned order rejecting the petitioner’s application is both lawful and appropriate. Learned Counsel for the respondent fur