Disposed¶27

Amitap Shrivastav v. Smt. Laxmi Shrivastav (Ramtake)

Chhattisgarh HC19 Nov 2024WP227/92/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court WP227 No. 92 of 2023 (Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari, 20.11.2024): belated filing of documents under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC; relevancy of documents not to be judged solely for late submission where counsel died and documents were recovered from his office; trial Court directed to accept documents serial No.1 to 12 in title/permanent injunction civil suit (No.16A/2017); conditional allowance with Rs.5,000/- cost to opposite party; writ petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's challenge succeeded in substance: the twelve documents (serial No.1 to 12) rejected below are now allowed to be taken on record, subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- cost by the petitioner/plaintiff to respondent No.1/wife within 15 days; a copy of the order is to be sent to the concerned trial Court for compliance. ¶27

Amitap Shrivastav Vs Smt. Laxmi Shrivastav (Ramtake) — Chhattisgarh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial Court wrongly refused to accept the documents at serial No.1 to 12 (filed under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC after commencement of the plaintiff's evidence) on the ground of their belated filing, given that relevancy of documents cannot fairly be examined at that juncture.

¶21

Court's answer

The relevancy of the documents cannot be examined at this juncture merely because they were filed belatedly, especially since the belated filing occurred because the earlier counsel died and the documents were obtained from his office.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

For adjudication of the case, the documents at serial No.1 to 12 should have been allowed by the concerned Court; accordingly they are allowed, subject to payment of a cost of Rs.5,000/- by the petitioner/plaintiff within 15 days, payable to respondent No.1/wife through their respective counsels.

¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (WP227 No. 92 of 2023, High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur; Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari; order dated 20/11/2024): Challenged the order dated 09.11.2022 of the 3rd Additional District Judge, Rajnandgaon in Civil Suit No.16A/2017, whereby the plaintiff's application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC to place additional documents on record — filed belatedly, before commencement of the plaintiff's evidence, in a suit against his wife for declaration of title and permanent injunction — was partly allowed and documents at serial No.1 to 12 (including paper publications, judgments of the High Court and Revenue Court, and a municipal corporation notice) were rejected. The High Court held that relevancy of documents cannot be examined at that juncture merely on the ground of belated filing, particularly where the delay arose because the earlier counsel died during the proceedings and the documents had to be retrieved from his office. Allowing the documents at serial No.1 to 12 subject to a cost of Rs.5,000/- payable by the petitioner to respondent No.1/wife within 15 days, the Writ Petition stood disposed of.

1 / 3

2024:CGHC:45264

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

PRIYANKA VERMA

¶6

Digitally signed by PRIYANKA VERMA Date: 2024.11.21 17:24:18 +0530

¶7

WP227 No. 92 of 2023

¶8

Amitap Shrivastav S/o Late V.P. Shrivastav Aged About 49 Years Occupation Advocate, R/o Club Chowk, Near Shitla Mandir, Ward No. 43, Basantpur Rajnandgaon, Tahsil Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh

¶9

... Petitioner/Plaintiff

¶10

versus

¶11

1. Smt. Laxmi Shrivastav (Ramtake) W/o Amitabh Shrivastav, aged about 46 years, Working As Zila Nazir, District And Session Court Janjgir, Tahsil Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh

¶12

2. State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh

¶13

... Respondents/Defendants

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate For Respondents No.1 : Mr. Vishvanath Shriwas, Advocate

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board

¶16

20/11/2024

¶17

1. This Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 09.11.2022 passed in Civil Suit No.16A/2017 by the 3^rd Additional District Judge,

¶18

2 / 3

¶19

Rajnandgaon (C.G.), whereby the application preferred by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of the CPC was partly allowed.

¶20

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff has filed a Civil Suit against his wife for declaration of title and permanent injunction alleging that the Suit house was purchased by him. During the pendency of the said Suit, before commencement of the plaintiff’s evidence, the subject application has been filed for taking certain documents on record and the said application was partly allowed by the impugned order. Hence this Petition.

¶21

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed certain documents, which are in the nature of the paper publication, a copy of the judgment passed by this Court and the Revenue Court and a notice issued by the municipal corporation, but the documents at serial No.1 to 12 were not allowed by the impugned order, though the said documents are relevant for fair and proper adjudication of the Suit. He would further submit that the relevancy of those documents cannot be examined at this juncture. Thus, the trial Court has wrongly passed the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the Petition and issue a suitable direction to the concerned trial Court.

¶22

4. Per contra , learned counsel for respondent No.1/wife would oppose the aforesaid submission and support the impugned order.

¶23

5. Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and also considering the nature of document and the nature of dispute, I am

¶24

3 / 3

¶25

of the view that the relevancy of the documents cannot be examined at this juncture only because the said documents have been filed belatedly, though the ground has been stated that the said documents have been earlier handed over to the counsel, and during the proceeding the counsel died, so after obtaining documents from the office of the earlier counsel, the same have been filed belatedly.

¶26

6. Considering all these aspects, this Court is of the opinion that for adjudication of the case, the documents at serial No.1 to 12 should have been allowed by the concerned Court. Accordingly the same are allowed subject to payment of a cost of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner/plaintiff through their counsel within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the said cost shall be paid to respondent No.1/wife through their counsel. Ordered accordingly.

¶27

7. With the aforesaid observations/directions, this Writ Petition stands disposed of.

¶28

8. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for compliance.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge

¶31

Priyanka

Amitap Shrivastav v. Smt. Laxmi Shrivastav (Ramtake)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amitap Shrivastav v. Smt. Laxmi Shrivastav (Ramtake)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Texcel Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Priyanshu Raut Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Neha Purohit Vs Krishna Dave

Abdul Gaffar Khan Khokhar Vs Mohammed Raza @ Munna Miyan (Since Dead) through Legal Heirs-

Suresh Meshram Vs Mukund Bansod

R. K. Industries Vs Balkrishna Dani