High Court set aside Trial Court order admitting documents under CPC Order VII Rule 14. Evidence lacked relevance and pleadings. Writ petition allowed.
Quashed impugned order, rejected application for record. Stay petition disposed of. No costs mentioned.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2489/2019
----Petitioners
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Nahar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jhamak Nagda
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
25/07/2019
Though, the matter was listed for admission, looking to the short issue involved, learned counsel for the parties requested that the matter be finally heard and decided.
The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 14.11.2018, whereby the application under Order VII Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the respondents-plaintiffs has been allowed by the learned District Judge (Labour Court), Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as “the Trial Court”), in Civil Original Case No.90/2017 (45/2012).
(2 of 4) [CW-2489/2019]
Briefly narrated, the facts appertain are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for cancellation of a registered sale-deed dated 01.04.2011, interalia, with an assertion that two cheques of Rs.25,00,000/- which had been given for consideration of the sale, had been returned dishonoured.
The present petitioner Smt. Basant Prabha (defendant) filed a written statement and took a plea that a consideration for Rs.25,00,000/- has been given to Smt. Lali Bai W/o Roop Lal.
Be that as it may, the subject application under Order VII Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure came to be filed by the plaintiffs (respondents herein), interalia, seeking to place on record, photostat copy of the agreement dated 31.07.2006 and agreement dated 12.01.2004 stated to have been executed between Roop Lal S/o Kanna Lal Dangi in favour fo Smt. Lali Bai.
The present petitioner-defendant objected plaintiffs’ request of taking these documents on record, interalia, contending that they are neither germane to the issue involved nor are they necessary for deciding the issues. It was also pointed out that the plaintiff has not filed any rejoinder.
Learned Trial Court decided petitioner’s application under Section VII Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, by the common order vide which, it had allowed the application under Order XI Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the plaintiff.
While allowing the application under Order VII Rule 14 of the Code, learned Court below observed that documents in question are relevant and since they were not available with the plaintiffs, the same could not be filed along with rejonider.
(3 of 4)
[CW-2489/2019]
Mr. Sanjay Nahar, learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the order dated 14.11.2018, passed by the learned Court below contended that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court is not only contrary to the settled canons of law, but also factually incorrect, inasmuch as, no rejoinder had been filed by the plaintiffs. Neither in the application filed by the plaintiffs, nor during the course of arguments, the plaintiffs could satisfy the Court about the relevance or necessity of those documents.
It was also asserted that there was no explanation for not filing the documents in time and further that there was no pleadings of the plaintiffs, in support whereof the documents can be said to be relevant.
Mr. Jhamak Nagda, learned counsel for the respondentsplaintiffs while supporting the order impugned, contended that the documents in question are relevant and would help the plaintiffs to prove their stand. He however, fairly admitted that no rejoinder was filed by the plaintiffs.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the order under challenge passed by the trial Court on 14.11.2018 deserves to be set aside, solely for having been passed on wrong factual foundation, viz. ‘rejoinder has been filed’.
That apart, neither the plaintiffs have shown any relevance nor has the Court below considered the need of those documents before allowing the application vide its otherwise cursory order.
A perusal of the pleadings of the parties leaves no room for ambiguity that none of the parties have made any averment surrounding the transaction governed by these two agreements.
(4 of 4) [CW-2489/2019]
In absence of any pleadings, the documents filed by the plaintiffs
ought not to have been taken on record.
As an upshot of discussions above, the writ petition succeeds.
The order dated 14.11.2018, passed by the District Judge (Labour Court), Udaipur is quashed and set aside and the application under Order VII Rule 14 of the Code filed by the plaintiffs is rejected.
The Stay Petition No.2407/2019 also stands disposed of.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
21-Ramesh/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether documents admitted under Order VII Rule 14 CPC without prior pleadings regarding their relevance should be rejected.
Whether the admission of documents without filed rejoinders vitiates the lower court order on factual foundation.
Whether the High Court can quash the lower court order in a writ petition amended to cognizance of admission of documents.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Ashok Jain
Kanna Ji Dangi
Sanjay @ Tulsi Ram
DINESH MEHTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
