Arvind Kumar and Others Vs Rijhu (deceased through LRs) and Another

“Quashing and setting aside impugned order Annexure P-7 with further directions to the Trial Court to call PW-3 Smt. Sureshtha Devi directing her to complete the translation of Urdu Mutation Ex.t PW-3/K and prove the same in evidence in accordance with law.”

¶16

The petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed

¶17

by the learned Trial Court, in terms whereof, an application filed

¶18

by the petitioners under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure

¶19

Code to place on record the complete translation of document

¶20

2

¶21

Ex.PW-3/A, which was in Urdu script alongiwith a request to examine the translator Smt. Sureshtha Devi stands rejected.

¶22

Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that in the course of leading evidence, Mutation No.1023 pertaining to the year 1908-1909 was exhibited on the record of the learned Trial Court which is Ext. PW-2/K. Its translation has also been exhibited as Ex. PW3/L. The translator Smt. Sureshtha Devi has been examined as PW-3. Thereafter, an application stood filed under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code before the learned Trial Court with the prayer that the English translation of the document which was submitted was only part translation and, therefore, a prayer was made to place on record full translation and permission was also sought to examine the Urdu translator of the document Smt. Sureshtha Devi to exhibit the same. This application has been dismissed by the learned Trial Court in terms of the impugned order dated 04.04.2025, operative portion whereof reads as under:-

¶23

“I have heard learned counsel for parties and gone through the case file very carefully. Through present application, applicant/plaintiff seeks interference of this

¶24

3

¶25

Court to avail document i.e. translation to be done by one Smt. Surestha, on behalf of applicant/plaintiff. However, the document in question is a public document and applicant/plaintiff can get the same translated from the concerned person by himself. No reason has been mentioned in the present application as to why court’s interference is required. Also the court cannot act as an agency for collecting evidence on behalf of parties. Even otherwise also, perusal of case file shows that issues have already been framed in the present suit and that documents if any at this stage can be produced only as per provision under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC. In view of specific provision under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC, the present application under Section 151 of CPC is not maintainable and no relief can be granted which is not permissible under Order 7 Rule 14 of the CPC. Therefore, this court is of the opinion that present application is not maintainable and application accordingly stands disposed of.”

¶26

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the impugned order as well as the application which was filed by the petitioners which has been rejected in terms of the impugned order, this Court is of the considered view that the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

¶27

While passing the impugned order, learned Trial Court has not taken into consideration the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chandreshwar Bhuthnath Devasthan

¶28

4

¶29

Vs. Baboy Matiram Varenkar, (2018) 12 Supreme Court Cases 548, in which judgment Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that where a document already stands exhibited and a prayer is to place on record a translated copy thereof, there is no requirement even of filing any application to place on record the translated version of the document and all that the Court has to ensure is that the translated version is the true translated version of the document concerned and for that purpose, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, opportunity should be given to both the parties to file translated version of the document and/or to agree on a correct translation filed by a party. Hon’ble Supreme Court has also held that alternatively, the Court can also get the translation done on the expense of the party through the official Translator. The law so declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as far back as in the year 2018 has been ignored by the learned Trial Court while passing the impugned order and, therefore, obviously, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

¶30

5

¶31

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. Order dated 04.04.2025 is set aside and the learned Trial Court is directed to allow the translated copy of the exhibited document to be taken on record. Copy thereof be provided to the other side and if any discrepancy is pointed therein by the other side, the same be looked into by the learned Trial Court and thereafter an agreed correct translation be taken on record. Otherwise the learned Trial Court may proceed in terms of the ratio of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court cited hereinabove which gives the learned Court the liberty to get the translation done on the expense of the party through the official Translator.

¶32

Petition stands disposed of accordingly. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶33

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge

¶34

December 03, 2025 (Vinod)

Arvind Kumar and Others v. Rijhu (deceased through LRs) and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind Kumar and Others v. Rijhu (deceased through LRs) and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subhash Chand Vs Rakesh Kanwar

Pinki and Others Vs the State of Hp and Others

Kuldeep Sharma and Ors. Vs Ashish Kohli

Joginder Singh Vs Nipun Jindal and Anr.

Vijay Kumar Heer Vs State of Hp and Others

Krishan Chand and Others Vs the State of Hp and Others