Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 3572
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
SUBHASH CHANDER @ SUBHASH CHAND – Appellant
Versus
ANKIT KUMAR AND ORS. – Respondent
/8170/2017
A notice to admit documents under Order 12 Rule 2A CPC must be given within seven days from the date of service of the notice, and is not maintainable if filed at a belated stage after the evidence of the parties has already been closed.
Headnote:
ADMISSION OF DOCUMENTS - ORDER 12 CPC - NOTICE - TIMING - [Order 12 CPC provides that a party may give notice to admit the truth of the whole or any part of the case of any other party. The notice to admit documents under Rule 2 must be given within seven days from the date of service of the notice. The purpose of this provision is to save time and expenditure in proving documents. The notice should be issued at the beginning of the trial, not at the fag end.]
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking a declaration that the estate of the deceased was governed solely by a Will executed by him in favor of his three sons, and that his daughters were divested from inheritance. The defendant served a notice on the plaintiff to admit documents from an earlier suit that had been withdrawn. The plaintiff objected to the notice as being filed at a belated stage and not maintainable.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the notice to admit documents was not maintainable as it was filed at a highly belated stage, after the evidence of the parties had already been closed. The court observed that the purpose of Order 12 Rule 2A CPC is to save costs and expenses in leading evidence, and that when the evidence has already been led and the case partly argued, the notice is not maintainable.
Issues: Whether the notice to admit documents was maintainable, having been filed at a belated stage after the evidence of the parties had already been closed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Order 12 CPC, which provides that a notice to admit documents must be given within seven days from the date of service of the notice. The court held that the purpose of this provision is to save time and expenditure in proving documents, and that when the evidence has already been led and the case partly argued, the notice is not maintainable.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned order of the trial court and held that the documents in question could not be taken into consideration as legally proved documents for the reason of deemed to be admitted by the plaintiff in terms of Order 12 Rule 2A CPC.
CR-8170-2017(O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR-8170-2017(O&M)
Date of decision:-6.1.2023
Subhash Chander @ Subhash Chand
...Petitioner
Versus
Ankit Kumar and others
...Respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S.MADAAN
Present:
Mr.Inderjit Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr.Rajan Bansal, Advocate
for respondent No.1.
****
H.S. MADAAN, J.
1.
Briefly stated, facts of the case are that plaintiff Subhash
Chander @ Subhash Chand had brought a suit against defendants Ankit
Kumar and others seeking a declaration that estate of late Sh.Ved Parkash
son of Sh.Babu Ram is governed solely by Will dated 30.12.2011
executed by Sh.Ved Parkash deceased, owner during his lifetime in favour
of his three sons i.e. plaintiff Subhash Chander @ Subhash Chand,
defendant No.2 Harbans Lal and defendant No.3 Makhan Lal, whereas his
daughters Pushpa alias Guddi, Pushpa alias Putti and Veena Rani,
defendants No.4 to 6 stood divested from inheritance qua the suit
properties, besides seeking a decree for permanent injunction restraining
defendants No.1 to 6 from interfering in any manner in peaceful
possession of the plaintiff over the suit properties and from taking illegal
BRIJ MOHAN
2023.01.09 18:07
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment,
HIgh Court, Chandigarh
CR-8170-2017(O&M)
-2-
and forcible possession thereof from the plaintiff etc.
2.
On getting notice, the defendants appeared and filed written
statement contesting the suit. Issues on merits were framed. The parties
led evidence in support of their respective claims. While the trial Court of
Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Bathinda is said to have heard the arguments in
part, the defendant No.1 is said to have served a notice upon the plaintiff
for admission and denial of documents i.e. certified copies of plaint and
affidavit filed by the plaintiff Subhash Chander in suit titled 'Subhash
Chander Versus Ankit Kumar and others' bearing Civil Suit No.908 of
11.6.2012, withdrawn on 21.7.2012 from the Court of Civil Judge
(Jr.Divn.), Bathinda.
3.
The plaintiff submitted objections to the notice stating that it
was not maintainable having been filed at a highly belated stage when
evidence of the parties stood already closed; notice to admit documents in
terms of Order XII Rule 3 CPC is meant to be given immediately after
framing of issues as the whole purpose behind this provision is to save
costs and expenses in leading evidence and when the evidence has already
been led and case even partly argued on behalf of the plaintiff then this
notice is not maintainable and deserves to be rejected.
4.
However, the trial Court of Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Bathinda
vide impugned order dated 1.9.2017 had observed that compliance of
Order 12 Rule 2A has not been made by the plaintiff while giving reply,
hence documents are deemed to be admitted by the plaintiff as those have
not been specifically denied.
5.
The plaintiff felt aggrieved by that order and has challenged
BRIJ MOHAN
2023.01.09 18:07
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment,
HIgh Court, Chandigarh
CR-8170-2017(O&M)
-3-
the same by way of filing the present revision petition, praying that the
order be set aside by way of acceptance of the revision petition.
6.
Notice of the revision petition was issued to the respondents
and respondent No.1 has put in appearance through counsel.
7.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties besides going
through the record and I find that the order under revision is not legally
sustainable.
8.
As has been rightly submitted by learned counsel for the
revision petitioner that provision under Order 12 CPC with regard to
admission of documents had been incorporated to curtail the time of the
trial because if the documents relied upon by any of the party is/are
admitted by the opposite party that saves time and expenditure in proving
said documents. Rule 1 of Order 12 CPC provides that a
