Court No. - 30
Case :- S.C.C. REVISION No. - 81 of 2018 Revisionist :- Dinesh Chandra Agrawal Opposite Party :- Hari Shankar Gupta Counsel for Revisionist :- Pankaj Agarwal
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the record.
Present revision has been filed challenging the order dated 28.5.2018 passed by the Additional District Judge, Chandausi at Sambhal in SCC Suit No. 09 of 2017 whereby certain documents, which were not annexed with the plaint, have been taken on record by allowing application being paper no. 44 whereby replica was taken on record and also permitting the placement of the documents on record annexed with list being paper no. 47-Ga.
Submission of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the Order 7 Rule 14 (1) provides that all such documents that are to be relied on by the revisionist are to be placed on record along with the plaint and thereafter the same cannot be permitted.
I have considered the submissions and perused the record. Order 7 Rule 14 clearly provides as under:-
"14. Production of document on which 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.
(2) Where any such document is not in possession or power of the plaintiff, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose possession or power it is.
(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 hearing of the suit.
(4) Nothing in his 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."
Amendment was made in sub-rule (3) in the year 2002. Under such circumstances, it is clear that the Court has power to grant leave permitting placement of such documents on record subsequently, even if the same, though ought to have been produced in Court 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. Therefore, I find that the order does not suffer from legal infirmity or jurisdictional error as the Court below has recorded finding that such documents are necessary for proper disposal of the case.
Present revision is devoid of merit and accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 25.7.2018 Abhishek