CR No. 203 of 2008 6.7.2009 Present: Mr. Rajesh Verma, Advocate, vice Mr. Mohan Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate, for the respondent. CR No. 203 of 2008 In terms of the present petition the petitioner-plaintiff has assailed the order dated 19.11.2008 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court No. 1, Hamirpur, H.P., dismissing his application filed under Order 7 Rule 14(3) read with Section 151 CPC. The plaintiff filed a civil suit, in which the construction raised by the respondent/defendant, being in violation of the provisions of the laws and bye-laws was in issue. The plaintiff had also filed a complaint with the statutory authorities, which during trial could not be placed on the record for the reason that the copies thereof were not available with him. However during trial, by exercising his right under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, he obtained the copies from the statutory authorities and subsequently moved an application to place the same on record. The Court below has dismissed the plaintiff’s said application on the ground that the documents were not relevant for proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties and that there is inordinate delay. The view taken by the Trial Court that the documents were not relevant for proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties is not correct. The controversy in issue is of the nature and character of the construction being raised by the defendant-respondent herein. Hence the complaint made by the plaintiff to the statutory -2- authorities and the action taken by them is absolutely relevant and material for the proper adjudication of the dispute/controversy inter se between the parties. It is no doubt true that the petitioner could have summoned the record when he lead his evidence. There is also no explanation for not having done so. But since the copies of the documents have now been obtained by him and the arguments in the suit are yet to begin, I am of the considered view that no prejudice will be caused to the respondent if the petitioner’s prayer for placing the documents on record is accepted. In reply to the application the respondents themselves have taken a plea that no alleged FIR was lodged by the plaintiff. The facts of the case necessitate allowing of the plaintiffs application. Subject to the petitioner’s paying Rs. 2000/- (Rupees two thousand) as costs to the respondent the present petition is allowed. The petitioner’s application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC is allowed and he is permitted to place the documents on record. The impugned order is set aside. Learned counsel for the plaintiff states that he shall not take more than one opportunity to lead additional evidence. Petition is disposed of. CMP No. 1002 of 2008 Disposed of. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. July 6, 2009 (PK)