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. 2114 of 2022 GAURAV KHANDELWAL Versus GWALIOR YOUNG MENS CLUB GYMC SANATAN DHARM MANDIR ROAD NEAR ACHLASHWAR MANDI LASHKAR GWALIOR THROUG AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Nikhil Rai- learned Counsel for petitioner.

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

ORDER The petitioner, Defendant No. 1 in the original suit, has filed the present Miscellaneous Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 04.11.2019 passed by the XIII Additional District Judge, Gwalior, in RCS No. 8-A of 2016. The impugned order rejected the petitioner's applications under Order 8 Rule 1(3) and Order 11 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which sought permission to take certain documents on record and file additional documents related to the case.

2. In brief, the plaintiff, respondent No. 1, filed a suit seeking a declaration of sole ownership and possession of the disputed property, nullification of the lease deed dated 18.05.2007, and the declaration of certain agreements as void. The petitioner, Defendant No. 1, raised a defense that all agreements, including the lease deed, were valid and executed in accordance with the plaintiff organization's constitution. During the cross- examination of Ajit Sacheti, the plaintiff’s witness, he was questioned about a Special General Meeting held on 28.10.2003, at which tenders were received. Although the witness was present at the meeting, he failed to recall the tenders received. The petitioner, Defendant No. 1, presented a copy of the tender before the trial court, but the plaintiff’s counsel objected, arguing that the witness's signature was not on the tender. The petitioner contended that the tenders were crucial documents for the case, which were being concealed by the plaintiff. Defendant No. 1 had previously filed an application in May 2019 under Order 11 Rule 14 CPC seeking the production of these tenders. However, the trial court dismissed the application on 02.07.2019, citing a lack of an affidavit and proper justification. In August 2019, the petitioner filed another application seeking the presentation of these documents, but the plaintiff again objected, citing delay and irrelevance. In November 2019, the petitioner filed an application under Order 8 Rule 1(3) CPC to take certain documents on record. The learned trial court, by the impugned order, rejected both applications, stating that the documents were either irrelevant or should have been produced earlier.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the order passed by the trial court on 04.11.2019 is illegal and contrary to law. The plaintiff, according to the petitioner, failed to file relevant documents, specifically those related to the lease deed, while blaming the defendant for the issues in question. The petitioner further submits that the delay in filing the present petition is attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic, which disrupted proceedings between March 2020 and September 2022. The petitioner pleads that this delay was genuine, and seeks to have the impugned order set aside.

4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the plaintiff- respondent No.1 contended that defendant No. 1 had previously filed an application for the same documents in May 2019, which was dismissed by the trial Court due to inadequate justification. The documents sought by the petitioner were not necessary for the just resolution of the case, as they were not pivotal to the issues at hand. It is further contended that the applications filed by the petitioner was merely intended to delay the proceedings, and therefore, the trial Court rightly rejected the applications. Hence, prays for the dismissal of the present miscellaneous petition.

5. Heard learned counsel for both parties and perused the impugned order as well as the documents available on record.

6. It is a well-set