1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7635/2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7635/2005. M/s.Masum Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. & Others. VERSUS Nav Bharat Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. & Another. 06.03.2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DALIP SINGH Mr.Bharat Raj Sonwal on behalf of Mr.Vishwajeet Mantri, for the petitioners. Mr.Mool Chand Luhadia, for plaintiff-respondent in person. ***** The petitioner who is the defendant has challenged in this writ petition the order dated 02.05.2005 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track No.3), Ajmer Camp Kishangarh in Civil Suit No.114/2004 (Old No.20/1998). The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of money against the defendants in the year 1998. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff earlier moved an application under Order 7 Rule 14 C.P.C., copy of which has been filed as Annexure-2 on record, wherein the plaintiff sought leave of the court for production of the three documents mentioned in para 2 of the application. The said application was filed on 17.09.2003. The defendants filed their reply opposing the application. However, the learned trial court vide its order dated 18.05.2004 allowed the application 2 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7635/2005 filed by the plaintiff-respondent. The said order dated 18.05.2004 has been filed as Annexure-3 on record. Despite the fact that the application filed under Order 7 Rule 14 C.P.C. by the plaintiff in the year 2003 was allowed, the plaintiff, it appears, did not submit the relevant document which is the memorandum and Articles of Association of the plaintiff-Company. The plaintiff again submitted an application which is Annexure-5 on record under Order 7 Rule 14 C.P.C. for taking on record certain documents. The said application reads as follows:- "वादी िनम् न ूकार िनवेदन करता है:- 1. यह िक वादी वाद के न् यायपूणर् िनणर्य के िलए िनम् न दः तावेज ूः तुत करता है 1. वादी कंपनी का मैमोरेंडम एवं आिटर्कल ऑफ एसोिसयेशन । 2. वादी कंपनी की सन ्1996-97 की बैलेंस शीट के िशडूल-ई लोन एण् ड एडवांसेज की िलः ट । 3. वादी कंपनी की बैलेंस शीट 1996-97 के िशडूल- जी की ूितिलिप । 4. राज् य सरकार के उपसिचव एवं मुख् य अिभयंता िसंचाई िवभाग का पऽ िदनांक 28.04.1999 । 5. वादी Ʈारा िलए गए ऋण पर बैंक Ʈारा वसूली गई ब् याज दर का ूमाण पऽ ।" The defendants submitted a reply to the said application and opposed the prayer for taking the said documents on record. The learned trial court allowed the application by the impugned order dated 02.05.2005 which has been filed as Annexure-6 on record. The said order dated 3 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7635/2005 02.05.2005 reads as follows:- "वादी Ʈारा ूः तुत ूाथर्ना पऽ आदेश 7 िनयम 14 सी पी सी पर बहस उभय पक्षकारान सुनी गई । वादी का ूाथर्ना पऽ ः वीकार िकया जाकर ूाथर्ना पऽ में अंिकत 1 लगायत 5 दः तावेजात िरकाडर् पर िलये जाते है चुंिक वादी Ʈारा उक् त दः तावेजात व ूाथर्ना पऽ देरी से ूः तुत हऐ है इस ु कारण ूितवादीगण को संशोिधत जवाब व दः तावेजात पेश करने होंगे अत: वादी ूितवादी को 100 रू कोः ट अदा करे वाः ते पेश होने ूितवादी Ʈारा सेशोिधत जवाब दावा व दः तावेजात हेतु 31-5-05 को पेश हो ।" Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 02.05.2005, the petitioner filed the present writ petition before this court. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order dated 02.05.2005 has been passed without assigning any reasons for allowing the application and taking the documents on record. It is submitted that the said order is a non-speaking order. It is further submitted that the plaintiff himself had earlier in the year 2003 submitted the application under Order 7 Rule 14 C.P.C., copy of which is available on record as Annexure-2 and the said application was allowed vide order dated 18.05.2004 (Annexure-3). Soon thereafter, the plaintiff again moved the present application on 04.10.2004. It is submitted that the provisions of Order 7 Rule 14 C.P.C. by the present application are being misused by the plaintiff. It is submitted that Rule 14 of Order 7 C.P.C. requires the plaintiff to produce the documents which are in his power and possession at the time of filing of the plaint and by entering the same in the list of 4 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7635/2005 document along with the plaint. The jurisdiction has been conferred upon the court under Rule 14 of Order 7 C.P.C. to produce the documents at the subsequent stage after obtaining the leave of the court. Shri Mool Chand Luhadia, Director of the plaintiff-Company has appeared in person before this court and has submitted an authority dated 01.11.2008 to contest the writ petition on behalf of the plaintiff- company. Shri Luhadia appearing for the plaintiff- company has submitted that so far as the application submitted by the plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 14 C.P.C. is concerned, it is not in dispute that the documents are in any way fabricated or forged documents so far as the genuineness of the same is concerned. He submits that even the defendants have not objected to the same. He submits that since the authenticity of the documents is not under challenge, no objection can be taken by the defendants for the production of the same. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Luhadia appearing on behalf of the plaintiff- Company. Rule 14 of Order 7 reads 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 document in a list, and shall produce it in court when the plaint is presented by him and shall, at the same time deliver the 5 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7635/2005 document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the plaint. (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. (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 this rule shall apply to document produced for the cross examination of the plaintiffs witnesses, or, handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.” In the present case, the court has once on the application submitted by the plaintiff on 17.09.2003 accepted the prayer of the plaintiff and allowed three documents mentioned by the plaintiff to be taken on record in the suit. In spite of the said application having been allowed, it appears that the plaintiff failed to produce the documents mentioned at para 2 (B) which is memorandum and Articles of Association of the plaintiff-Company. The said document is again mentioned at S.No.1 in para 1 of the application dated 04.10.2006 which has been allowed by the impugned order. So far as the aforesaid document is concerned, no objection can be taken by the petitioner-defendant to the said document being taken on record which was allowed by the learned trial court vide its earlier order 6 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7635/2005 dated 18.05.2004 which the defendant-petitioner failed to challenge. So far as the other documents are concerned which are the balance-sheet and Schedules-E and G to the said balance-sheet of the year 1996-1997 as well as the letter dated 28.04.1999 and the alleged certificate issued by the Bank with regard to the interest rates are concerned, it is not in dispute that the documents were available with the plaintiff even at the time when the earlier application under Order 7 Rule 14 C.P.C. was filed on 17.09.2003. A look at the application (Annexure-5) dated 04.10.2004 submitted by the plaintiff goes to show that there is no mention of any reason whatsoever in the said application filed by the plaintiff as to why these documents could not be filed earlier. Sub-Rule 2 of Rule 14 of Order 7 specifically provides that where any such document is not in the possession or power of the plaintiff, he shall, whenever possible, state in whose possession or power it is. Sub- rule (3) of Rule 14 of Order 7 C.P.C. permits the court the production of such document at the subsequent stage after giving leave to the plaintiff for the production of such document. Sub-rules (2) and (3) when read together necessarily enjoins upon the party seeking leave of the court to produce the document at a subsequent stage to satisfy the requirement of sub- rules (2) and (3). In the present case, the application submitted by the plaintiff goes to show that there is no such ground 7 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7635/2005 justifying the production of the document at this late stage. Similarly, much remains to be desired in the manner in which the learned trial court has decided the application submitted by the plaintiff vide order dated 02.05.2005. All that the learned trial court has mentioned is that “वादी का ूाथर्ना पऽ ः वीकार िकया जाकर ूाथर्ना पऽ में अंिकत 1 लगायत 5 दः तावेजात िरकाडर् पर िलये जाते है". The order has been quoted above in full. It will go to show that the learned trial court has neither applied its mind to the provisions of Order 7 Rule 14 C.P.C. nor the learned trial court has assigned any reason why the application has being allowed. The order to say least is absolutely cryptic and cannot be sustained. In the facts and circumstances, more particularly since the plaintiff failed to assign any reason for non- production of the documents at the appropriate stage with regards to the documents which have been mentioned at S.Nos.2 to 5, I am inclined to accept this writ petition and reject the prayer made by the plaintiff with regard to the documents mentioned at S.Nos.2 to 5. However, so far as the document mentioned at S.No.1 is concerned, since the learned trial court had by its earlier order dated 18.05.2004, which has been filed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition, allowed the same to be produced, the defendants-petitioners cannot be allowed to object for its production and cannot challenge the same now, since no grievance was raised to the order dated 18.05.2004. 8 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7635/2005 Consequently, this writ petition is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. The stay application stands disposed of. (DALIP SINGH),J. Solanki DS, Jr.P.A.