Fair trial principles dictate that all parties should be allowed to rebut evidence; allowing the plaintiff to submit documents was justified.

Order (Oral)

26/05/2025

1. Petitioner/defendant seeks quashing of an order dated 07.04.2022 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sirohi, in Civil Original Suit No. 05/2015 whereby application of respondent/ plaintiff under Order 7, Rule 14(3) read with Section 151 CPC was allowed.

2. Brief facts pleaded in the petition are that the respondent- plaintiff filed a civil suit before the trial court seeking a declaration of ownership, possession, and recovery of mesne profits from the petitioner-defendant concerning a shop in Village Varada, Sirohi. The respondent claimed ownership thereof based on a Patta in his name, asserting that the shop in question was first let out to the petitioner’s father in 2001 and then to the petitioner in 2013. He alleged that the petitioner/defendant stopped paying rent and, despite a legal notice issued on 01.10.2014, failed to vacate the premises or pay the dues, prompting the suit.

2.1. In response, the petitioner denied all claims, contending that the respondent was not the owner and that the Patta was forged and fabricated. He claimed he never rented the shop from the respondent, but instead constructed it himself. He had been in continuous possession for over 12 years.

2.2. After the exchange of pleadings, the trial court framed nine issues for determination. Both parties led their evidence. The respondent examined himself and one witness. The petitioner filed his affidavit and his evidence was yet to conclude.

2.3. At this stage, the petitioner filed an application under Order 8, Rule 1(3) read with Section 151 CPC to place on record a Zila Parishad enquiry report dated 19.08.2019. It stated that no Patta was issued to the respondent. The respondent opposed, alleging manipulation and lack of opportunity to be heard. However, the trial court allowed the application on 26.07.2021.

2.4. Following this, the petitioner moved an application under Order 16, Rule 1(3) CPC to summon the Panchayat officer to testify regarding the enquiry report, which the respondent objected. The respondent also filed an application under Order 7, Rule 14(3) CPC on 16.10.2021, seeking to place on record additional ownership documents such as the Jamabandi, Gift Deed, Map, and Land Conversion Order. The petitioner opposed the move as an attempt to fill lacunae belatedly. Nonetheless, the trial court permitted the respondent to submit these documents vide impugned order dated 07.04.2022. Hence, this petition.

3. I have perused the case file as well as the impugned order and heard the learned counsel for the parties.

4. First and foremost, let us have a look at the impugned order. For ease of reference, translation of the impugned order dated

07.04.2022 (as provided) is as under:-

“Heard learned counsel for the parties on the application filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 14(3) read with Section 151 of the CPC. By this order, the said application is being disposed of.

While reiterating the facts mentioned in the application submitted on behalf of the plaintiff, it is stated that the plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration, possession of the shop, and recovery of damages against the defendant. The defendant has submitted a report of inquiry dated 27.09.2019 along with an application and other documents relating to the issuance of a lease to the plaintiff later, which have been taken on record by the court. The officer of the inquiry report is relative of defendant, hence the report is neither reliable nor acceptable as evidence. The defendant has got the said documents prepared in their favor. The plaintiff has submitted certified copies of Jamabandi (revenue record), Ba