^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR cr^^^ ^w-lf— WRIT PETITION f227) No. 5616 of2008 A €:.? PETITIONER Anustha builders and colonizers private limited, Junwani Khamariya road, Junwani, a registered company incorporated under the provisiohs of Company Act, 1956, having its registration no. DU 04520 CT 2005 P.T.C. 17505 Gwalior, Tahsi] and District - Durg, through the Director Raghvendra Das Vaishnav, S/o. late Narendra Das aged about 42 years, R/o. Junwani Khamariya road, Junwani, Tahsil & District Durg (CG). VERSUS RESPONDENTS Smt. P. Laxmi Kanfhamma and another Post for pronouncement ofthe Judgment and Order on /0/12/2008 Sd/- sati^K.Agnibotri Judge ^s^-!'^y HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (227) N0. 561AoL2008 PETITIONER Plaintiff Anustha builders and colonizers private limited, Junwani Khamariya road, Junwani, a registered company incorporated under the provisions of CompanyAct, 1956, having its registration no. DU 04520 CT 2005 P.T.C. 17505 Gwalior, Tahsil and District - Durg, through the Director Raghvendra Das Vaishnav, S/o. late Narendra Das aged about 42 years, R/o. Junwani Khamariya road, Junwani, Tahsil & District Durg (CG). Versus 1. Smt. P. Laxmi Kanthamma W/o. late P. Defendants Krishna Murthy, aged about 65 yers, occupation Agriculture R.o. Mouza - Kohka, Plot No.40/A, road No.7, Smriti Nagar, Bhilai, Tahsil & Distt. Durg (CG). 2. State of Chhattisgarh through Collector, Durg, Tahsil and Distt. Durg (CG). RESPONDENTS (Writ petition underArticle 227 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench ; Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Rajeev Shrivastava with Ms. Monalisa Chatterjee, counsel for the petitioner. Shri K. Sharma, counsel forthe respondent No.1. Shri BhaskarPayasi, Panel Lawyerforthe State. JUDGEMNT &ORDER (Passed on this 10th day of December, 2008) The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 12-9-2008 (Annexure P/1) passed by 9th Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Durg, in Civil Suit No. 11A/2007 (Anustha Builders Vs. Smt. P. Laxmi Kanthamma and another), whereby the application filed under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, "CPC") for production ofdocuments bythe plaintiff, was rejected. Wffi^ leuiai)} ^o Buipuy iei|i pueiuoo pinoMjsuoiiiisdsqtJo^BuuBadde [ssunoo paujesi'9S[i8}B40 B!|BUO|^ •s|ft| t|}iM BAeiseAuqs Aasfey 1443 (e •pspefsj SBM 'odO squo (e)frl. ainy ^. JspJQ JSpun psiu 800Z-6-6 psiBpuoiteoiidde S41 'yons SB pye Buuesq syi stsidiuoo o} QW^ syiuotu xis p9tuej6 SB4 ynoo qBii-i siqi 'Aipuooeg •pspunojun sq 01 siusss AiiueoeJ MOU>| oi 8LUQ3 sey jsuo!i!t9d/y!iuie|d 941 leifl ynuieid/jayftucfsdsgy} JQ uqiieueidxo sij) 'snyi ;-sfep Ajjiqi jo pouad e uiqiiw psonpojd }ou SJSM siusuynoop tu8iuio||e ejeqs 9111 Aqw oise psuieidxs iou SBL) yiiuiBid/jsuoiiBad SLII 'sAep Ayii|i si ssiueduuoo^o jejisiBsy siji LIIIM siueiuiQiiESjeqs eqi 10 6ui|u JO^ aiyit siisinbaj 84} '(,,9S61. l3Va4l,, 'P04S JQ^) ggei. '19V ssiuedbuoo 941 (l) S^. uo!P9S °l Buipjooov 'JSIIJBS sjesA £ - Yt g ssiuedujooio jEjisiBsy sqi L|I] p9]ji sjawv 'yiiuieid/jsuoiwsd av^ 01 Guipjoooe 'siueiunoop tueLUtoiiB 9JBL|S eqj. •jesp IQU si 'uoitBOiidde siqi Aq pgonpojd aq 01 iqBnos SJSM I|OIIJM 'siusiunoop sssqt sonpojd 01 psiie^ yii.uieid/jeuoiiiisd 3L|i AL|M 'JS!|JB9 siuaiunoop gg se Aueuu se psonpojd jsyoiiiiad/yiiuieid syi -SOOZ-1.1.-91.PUB 9002-1.1.-01 '9002-1.1.-9 '900Z-6-91. '900Z-6-S 'SOOZ -9-6'900Z-S-Z'900Z-fr-61. '900Z-17-SI. ''s'! ssiep je!|jes puBSSUi.iuLUOO Bu!Beue|/\| 9L|i p seinuii/M inoqe peuoiiusLU iou sey jeyoiiBad/yiiuieid Sijl }Bi)l P|8L| '6-inQ'(Old) s6PnrP!fls!a IBuoffiPPV is-iy PsuJB^ 'lins 3L)l ui pSAiOAUi sindsi.p si|i 10 uoiieoipnfpe jsdojd joj in^asn pue Ajesssosu aje stusiunoop pies S^ pue luieid si|i ^o Buiiy ^o siun S41 eiqeiieAe^^ lou 9J8M SLues aq^ leqi punoj6 941 uo siusiunoop uiei.iso eonpQjd 01 OdO' 341 J.O (£)fl. siny L JSpJQ JSpun (£/dsjnxeuuv) 800Z-6-6 uo uoiieoiidde ue speuj y!iuie|d/j9uoii!i9d eqi 'jeyesjsqi •siuspuodssj/siyepusiep ai|l IsureBe uoipunfui }U9UBiujad pue eoueiujojjad oypsds joi te/d sjnxauuy) SOOZ-K--81. uo iins e pei^ yiiuieid/jauoiwsd sqi }BL)I 'aje jeuoiii.iad aqi Aq paiosfojd se '|]8i)sinu ui 'spei ^suq sqj. (z ~^' ^?' "S-- Court that the acceptance of the documents would create delay in the trial, is not sustainable in law. The documents, which were sought to be produced before the authorities, could have been accepted at any time as the said documents were necessary for proper adjudication of the dispute. The trial Court ignored the principle completely without assigning reasons thatthe trial Court should secure fairtrial and administration ofjustice. 1^'St4) Per contra, Shri K. Sharma, learned coun^el appearing for the respdndent No.1 would submit that the petitioner/plaintiff has ntit made out any ground for atcepting the documents after a period of three years from filing of the case. The petitioner/plaintiff has delayed even filing of the documentswith the Registrar of Companies. Therefore, this Courtmay not permit the petitioner to take advantage of production of those documents whjch has caused delay at every stage. This Court has granted six months time to dispose of thecivil suit and as such the trial Courtwas bound to reject the application in order to comply with the order of this Court to coniplete the trial within a period of six months. 5) I have heardlearned counselappearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6) The contentibn of the learned counsel appearing for the responderit No.1 that since six months time was granted by this Court, Which was mandatory, no doeuments could haVe been accepted, is mis-placed and misconceived. The first and foremost requirement of the trial is fair administration of justice. The learned Judge; ought to have considered the relevance of the said dQCuments and if it was necessary for prdper adjudication, the same ought to have been permitted. It appears that the learned trial Judge has not recorded any reasons for rejecting the application filed under Ordei-7 Rule 14 (3) of the CPC, by the t? petitioner/plaintiff. Whether therewas delay in filing of the share allotment documents with the Registrar of Companies or not, that should not be a consideration for rejection of the application. The trial Court failed to consider the facts independently and even if there was a direction by this Court, the relevant documents cannot be ignored which may lead to mal- administration of justice. The parties ought to have sought extension of yStimebythisCourt. ^ 7) Learned single Judge of the Calcutta High Court in the matter of Kejriwal Enterprises Vs. General Manager, Ordinance Faetory an others , was of the view that "the documents, which have not been presented along with the plaint and also have not been entered in the list that has been added or annexed to the plaint as per the provisions of 0.7. R.14 sub-rule (1) of the Code could still be tenderedin evidence with the leave of the Court which the Court may grant in exercise of jurisdiction undersub-rule (3) ofR.14of0.7 ofthe Code as amended byAmendment Act 22 of 2002." The similar view was expressed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Mahavir Prasad Jain v. Shambhoo Kuchabandiya . r'< - 8) I am in respectful agreement with the views taken by the learned single Jude of the Calcutta High Court and the learned single Judge of the Hjgh Court of M.P., at Jabalpur. The application filed under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of the CPC ought not to have been rejected on a simple ground that thesame was not produced earlier or the matter is directed to be decided expeditiously. Therefore, the above documents should be allowed to be taken on record. In the facts of the case, the learned trial Court has not 'AIR 2004 Calcutta 225 2MPWN 2005(1)177 •^. ^ ll ""s:usssi^i'" 9y^ :?aju t ^ appreciated the spirit of the provisions of the Order 7 Rule 14(3) in its proper perspeclive. Thus, the application filed on 9-9-2008 filedunder Order 7 Rule 14 (3) of the CPC by the petitioner/plaintiff deserves to be allowed. 9) In view of the foregoing and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the petition is accordingly allowed and the order dated 12-9-2008 .•^. (Annexure P/1) passed by 9"' Additional District Judge (FTC), Durg, is set aside. The trial Court after takingthe documents produced by the plaintiff will proceed with the matter and decide the case as expeditiously as possible as directed by this Court earlier;