Most. Prabhawati Kunwar v. Anil Kumar Pandey

Patna HC7 Aug 2025C.Misc./868/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Document-production/exhibits case: whether a plaintiff's documents not filed with the plaint require prior leave of the court under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC; Order 13 Rule 1 CPC construed as requiring originals at or before settlement of issues; rejection of prayer to mark documents as exhibits upheld; pending leave application dated 03.07.2025 ordered to be decided before arguments. Keywords: Order 7 Rule 14(3); Order 13 Rule 1; original documents; settlement of issues; leave of the Court; exhibits; Title Suit No. 41 of 1979; Kaimur at Bhabua; interlocutory application; disposal before argument.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of: impugned order dated 02.07.2025 affirmed; trial court directed to dispose of the petitioners' application dated 03.07.2025 in accordance with law before proceeding further in the matter. ¶¶67

Most. Prabhawati Kunwar Vs Anil Kumar Pandey — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶67

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 02.07.2025 passed in Title Suit No. 41 of 1979 rejecting the petitioners' petition for keeping the documents along with box in the custody of the court and marking them as exhibits suffers from any infirmity, given that rejection rested on the absence of prior leave of the court. +1 more

¶¶40

Court's answer

The petitioners' submission that Order 13 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure contains no provision requiring prior leave of the court is without any legal basis.

¶¶5

Ratio / Principle

Under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC, a document on which the plaintiff relies must be filed along with the plaint, and where it could not be so filed, the leave of the court is required for receiving it in evidence at the hearing of the suit; Order 13 Rule 1 merely shows that original documents are to be filed prior to or at the time of settlement of issues.

¶¶60

Key takeaways

The impugned order dated 02.07.2025 does not suffer from any infirmity, having been passed after due consideration of law, and is affirmed.ratio¶¶61
Since the interlocutory application dated 03.07.2025 remains pending before the trial court and concerns the valuable rights of the petitioners, it is not proper for the trial court to insist that the parties make their arguments without first disposing of that application.ratio¶¶65

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Arun Kumar Jha, J.), C.Misc. No. 868 of 2025, decided 07-08-2025 — Petitioners challenged the order dated 02.07.2025 of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1st, Kaimur at Bhabua in Title Suit No. 41 of 1979 rejecting their petition to keep documents along with the box in the court's custody and mark them as exhibits, contending that Order 13 Rule 1 CPC contains no provision requiring prior leave. Held: Order 13 Rule 1 merely requires original documents to be produced at or before the settlement of issues; under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC a plaintiff's document not produced with the plaint cannot be received in evidence at the hearing without the leave of the court; the submission lacked legal basis and the impugned order was affirmed. Since a subsequent application dated 03.07.2025 seeking leave to bring the documents on record remained pending and bore on the petitioners' valuable rights, the trial court was directed to dispose of it in accordance with law before proceeding further; petition disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.868 of 2025

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Most. Prabhawati Kunwar, W/o Late Sudama Prasad Tiwari @ Sudama Tiwari, Resident of Village- Sion, P.S. Bhabhua, District- Kaimur at Bhabhua.

¶4

Sunil Kumari Tiwari Son of Late Sudama Prasad Tiwari @ Sudama Tiwari, Resident of Village- Sion, P.S. Bhabhua, District- Kaimur at Bhabhua.

¶5

Raj Kumar Tiwari Son of Late Sudama Prasad Tiwari @ Sudama Tiwari, Resident of Village- Sion, P.S. Bhabhua, District- Kaimur at Bhabhua.

¶6

Santosh Kumar Tiwari Son of Late Sudama Prasad Tiwari @ Sudama Tiwari, Resident of Village- Sion, P.S. Bhabhua, District- Kaimur at Bhabhua.

¶7

Subhash Kumar Tiwari Son of Late Sudama Prasad Tiwari @ Sudama Tiwari, Resident of Village- Sion, P.S. Bhabhua, District- Kaimur at Bhabhua.

¶8

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

¶9

Anil Kumar Pandey Son of Late Lakshmi Narain Pandey, Resident of Village- Dhanachhuawan, P.S.- Karakat, District- Rohtas at Sasaram presently residing at Mohalla- Company Sarai, Kali Asthan, G.T. Road, Sasaram, P.S.- Sasaram, District- Rohtas at Sasaram.

¶10

Deepak Kumar Pandey Son of Late Lakshmi Narain Pandey, Resident of Village- Dhanachhuawan, P.S.- Karakat, District- Rohtas at Sasaram presently residing at Mohalla- Company Sarai, Kali Asthan, G.T. Road, Sasaram, P.S.- Sasaram, District- Rohtas at Sasaram.

¶11

Divya Pandey Daughter of Late Lakshmi Narain Pandey, Resident of Village- Dhanachhuawan, P.S.- Karakat, District- Rohtas at Sasaram presently residing at Mohalla- Company Sarai, Kali Asthan, G.T. Road, Sasaram, P.S.- Sasaram, District- Rohtas at Sasaram.

¶12

Anjani Pandey Daughter of Late Lakshmi Narain Pandey, Resident of Village- Dhanachhuawan, P.S.- Karakat, District- Rohtas at Sasaram presently residing at Mohalla- Company Sarai, Kali Asthan, G.T. Road, Sasaram, P.S.- Sasaram, District- Rohtas at Sasaram.

¶13

Sangita Pandey Daughter of Late Lakshmi Narain Pandey, Resident of Village- Dhanachhuawan, P.S.- Karakat, District- Rohtas at Sasaram presently residing at Mohalla- Company Sarai, Kali Asthan, G.T. Road, Sasaram, P.S.- Sasaram, District- Rohtas at Sasaram.

¶14

Harendra Prasad Tiwari S/o- Late Ganga Tiwari, Resident of Village- Sion, P.S.- Bhabhua, District- Kaimur.

¶15

Bijendra Tiwari S/o- Harendra Prasad Tiwari, Resident of Village- Sion, P.S.- Bhabhua, District- Kaimur.

¶16

Birendra Mishra S/o- Late Babban Mishra, Resident of Village- Padhauti, P.S- Bhagwanpur, District- Kaimur at Bhabhua.

¶17

Santosh Kumar Mishra S/o- Sri Birendra Mishra, Resident of Village-

¶18

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.868 of 2025 dt.07-08-2025 2/6

¶19

Padhauti, P.S- Bhagwanpur, District- Kaimur at Bhabhua.

¶20

Vina Kumari Daughter of Birendra Mishra, Resident of Village- Padhauti, P.S- Bhagwanpur, District- Kaimur at Bhabhua.

¶21

Saroaj Kumari W/o- Rishikesh Pandey, Resident of Village- Mohaniya, P.SMohaniya, District- Kaimur at present residing at village- Padhauit, P.SBhagwanpur, District- Kaimur.

¶22

Narendra Nath Pandey S/o- Late Dashrath Pandey, Resident of VillageNawada, P.S- Saiyad Raja, District- Chandauli, Uttar Pradesh at present residing at D59/199/A-10, Shivpuram Colony, Shivpurwa Varanasi (U.P).

¶23

Manish Kumar Pandey S/o- Narendra Nath Pandey, Resident of VillageNawada, P.S- Saiyad Raja, District- Chandauli, Uttar Pradesh at present residing at D59/199/A-10, Shivpuram Colony, Shivpurwa Varanasi (U.P).

¶24

Pratibha Pandey D/o- Narendra Nath Pandey and W/o- Chanchal Upadhya, Resident of B-34/146 P2K Sarainandan, Dasmai (Khojwa), Varanasi, U.P.

¶25

Manju Lata Pandey W/o- Narvdeshwar Pandey, Resident of Village- Nuaon, P.O. and P.S- Nuaon at present residing at M1/15 BPTP Park Land Sector 83 Kherikhurd Faridabad, Haryana- 121002.

¶26

Prem Lata Chaubey W/o- Manoj Kumar Chaubey, Residence of VillageGayghat, Post- Nateya, P.S- Kudra, at present residing at Bhabhua Ward No. 10 Chakbani Road, P.O and P.S- Bhabhua, District- Kaimur.

¶27

Pushplata Tiwari D/o- Late Sudama Prasad Tiwari and W/o- Anil Kumar Dubey, Resident of Village- Sion, P.O. and P.S- Bhabhua, District- Kaimur at present residing at Village- Kaser, P.O- Kaser, P.S- Bhagwanpur, DistrictKaimur.

¶28

Shankar Singh Son of Late Narayan Singh, Village- Sion, P.S- Bhabhua and District- Kaimur at Bhabhua.

¶29

Rajendra Singh Son of Late Narayan Singh, Village- Sion, P.S- Bhabhua and District- Kaimur at Bhabhua.

¶30

Most. Name not known W/o- Late Narayan Singh, Village- Sion, P.SBhabhua and District- Kaimur at Bhabhua.

¶31

... ... Respondent/s

¶32

======================================================

¶33

Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ajay Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL JUDGMENT

¶34

Date : 07-08-2025

¶35

The record taken up on mentioning being made on

¶36

behalf of the petitioners.

¶37

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶38

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.868 of 2025 dt.07-08-2025 3/6

¶39

The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 02.07.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1^st , Kaimur at Bhabua in Title Suit No. 41 of 1979 whereby and whereunder a petition dated 02.07.2025 filed by the petitioners for keeping the documents along with box in the custody of the court and marking them as exhibits in the suit has been rejected.

¶40

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that prayer of the petitioners was rejected only on the ground that no prior leave of the court was obtained by the petitioners. The learned counsel further submits that Order 13 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code) does not provide any such provision for seeking leave from the court.

¶41

I think such submission is without any legal basis. The Order 13 Rule 1 of the Code reads thus :

¶42

“1. Original documents to be produced at or before the settlement of issues .—(1) The parties or their pleader shall produce on or before the settlement of issues, all the documentary evidence in original where the copies thereof have been filed along with plaint or written statement.

¶43

(2) The Court shall receive the documents so produced:

¶44

Provided that they are accompanied by an accurate list thereof prepared in such form as the

¶45

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.868 of 2025 dt.07-08-2025 4/6

¶46

High Court directs.

¶47

(3) Nothing in sub-rule (1) shall apply to documents—

¶48

(a) produced for the cross-examination of the witnesses of the other party; or

¶49

(b) handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory”.

¶50

The aforesaid provision merely shows original documents are to be filed prior to or at the time of settlement of

¶51

issues.

¶52

Then Order 7 Rule 14 of the Code reads as under :

¶53

“14. Production of document on which

¶54

plaintiff sues or relies .—(1) Where a plaintiff sues upon a document or relies upon document in his possession or power in support of his claim, he shall enter such documents in a list, and shall produce it in court when the plaint is presented by him and shall, at the same time deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the plaint.

¶55

(2) Where any such document is not in the possession or power of the plaintiff, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose possession or power it is.

¶56

(3) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the plaintiff when the plaint is presented, or to be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint but is not produced or entered accordingly, shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the

¶57

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.868 of 2025 dt.07-08-2025 5/6

¶58

hearing of the suit.

¶59

(4) Nothing in this rule shall apply to document produced for the cross-examination of the plaintiff's witnesses, or, handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory”.

¶60

Order 7 Rule 14 (3) of the Code makes it abundantly clear that any document on which plaintiff relies has to be filed along with the plaint and if such document could not be filed along with pleading, the leave of the court is required for receiving such document in evidence at the hearing of the suitbefore the court.

¶61

In the light of aforesaid discussion, I do not find the impugned order dated 02.07.2025 suffers from any infirmity as the same has been passed after due consideration of law and, therefore, the same is affirmed.

¶62

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed another application on 03.07.2025 seeking leave of the court to bring on record the documents, but the said application has been kept pending till date. The learned counsel further submits that the evidence of the parties has been closed and the court is insisting the parties to start their argument. Thus, learned counsel submits that the learned trial court may be directed to first dispose of the application dated 03.07.2025 before proceeding further in the

¶63

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.868 of 2025 dt.07-08-2025 6/6

¶64

matter.

¶65

Since the interlocutory application has been pending before the learned trial court with regard to valuable rights of the petitioners, it is not proper for the learned trial court to insist the parties to make their argument in the case without first disposing of the application dated 03.07.2025 filed by the petitioners.

¶66

Therefore, learned trial court is directed to dispose of the application dated 03.07.2025 filed by the plaintiffs/petitioners in accordance with law prior to proceeding further in the matter.

¶67

Accordingly, the instant petition stands disposed

¶68

of.

¶69

(Arun Kumar Jha, J)

¶70

V.K.Pandey/-

¶71

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE	NA
Uploading Date	08.08.2025
Transmission Date	NA

Most. Prabhawati Kunwar v. Anil Kumar Pandey

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Most. Prabhawati Kunwar v. Anil Kumar Pandey

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

Nawal Kishore Bhagat Vs Ratan Kumar Bhagat

Raj Kumar @ Raju Kumar @ Raju Gupta Vs Guriya Devi

Ganga Sahni Vs The State of Bihar

Sunil Kumar Vs Rajendra Prasad and Ors.

Kumar Samir @ Kumar Sameer, Vs Anisha Srivastava

Suryadeo Ojha Vs Shyam Sundar Singh Yadav and Ors.