1 VIJAY KUMAR MOHTA VS. NARAIN RAM AND ORS. (S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1381/2010) Dated : 12.7.2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA Mr. D.D.Chitlangi, for the petitioner. Mr. Suresh Shrimali for the respondents. 1. This writ petition is directed against orders dated 5.2.2010 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), No.2, Bikaner in civil suit no.17/09, rejecting the applications preferred by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC and Order VII Rule 14 (3) CPC. 2. The petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction in respect of the 30 bighas and 14 biswas land comprising Khasra No. 57/19/2 situated in Village Ridmalsar Purohitan, Bikaner. The suit is being contested by the respondents/ defendants by filing a written statement. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner/plaintiff filed application under Order I Rule 10(2) r/w Order XXII Rule 10 CPC for impleading subsequent transferees as party respondents in the matter. The petitioner filed yet another application for production of certain documents viz. Certified copy of Mutation dated 20.6.1982, Certified copy of the Judgment and Decree dated 31.12.1982, Sale Deed dated 15.12.2007 and copy of the Newspaper Dainik Bhaskar dated 10.2.2008 on record. Both the applications have 2 been dismissed by the trial court by two separate orders dated 5.2.2010. Hence this petition. 3. The court below while dismissing the application preferred by the petitioner under Order I Rule 10 (2) CPC observed that the petitioner/plaintiff has filed the suit for permanent injunction and the defendants are contesting the suit taking the stand that they are in possession of the land in question and they purchased the property by a registered sale deed prior to the petitioner/plaintiff. That apart, the Court observed that even as per the Commissioner's report, the defendants are in possession of the plot in question. The Court opined that the rights of the subsequent transferee shall be governed by the lis pendence and if the suit is decided in favour of the plaintiff then obviously the transaction in question in the hands of the subsequent transferee shall remain confined to the extent of rights of the defendants. 4. The application preferred under Order VII Rule 14 (3) CPC has been rejected by the trial court holding that the plaintiff's evidence has already been completed and all the documents sought to be produced were in existence prior to the conclusion of the plaintiff's evidence. The Court observed that there is no explanation that if the documents are relevant to the controversy involved in the suit, why the same were not produced at the appropriate stage before the conclusion of the plaintiff's evidence. 3 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff contended that all the documents sought to be produced by the plaintiff are copies of the judicial or public documents within the meaning of Section 74 and 77 of the Evidence Act, 1872, therefore, the court below ought not to have refused the same to be taken on record. Learned counsel submitted that delay in producing the documents cannot be a ground for rejection of the application under Order VII Rule 14. 6. Learned counsel submitted that the court below has also erred in rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner under Order I Rule 10 (2) CPC for impleading subsequent transferees as party defendants in the matter. Learned counsel submitted that so as to avoid the multiplicity of proceedings, it was absolutely necessary to implead subsequent transferees as parties to the suit. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has relied upon a Bench decision of this Court in Chandra Bai Vs. Khandal Vipra Vidyalay Samiti and Ors., AIR 2008 Rajasthan 1. 7. It is true that as per provisions of Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC, the court may at any stage add a person as party to the suit either as defendant or the plaintiff, whose presence before the court may be necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit. It is to be noticed that the suit is 4 filed by the petitioner/plaintiff against the respondents/ defendants seeking permanent injunction on the ground that he has purchased the property from the defendant No.2, however, the defendant No.1 has attempted to dispossess the petitioner/plaintiff from the land claiming himself to be the owner of the land. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, only issue framed by the trial court is “whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction against the defendants in terms that the defendants are not entitled to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff over the disputed plot and cannot dispossess him from the plot ?” Thus, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in considered opinion of this Court the presence of the subsequent transferees is absolutely not necessary for effective and complete adjudication of the controversy involved in the suit. Indisputably, the rights of the subsequent transferees shall be governed by the lis pendence. In this view of the matter, the Court below has committed no jurisdictional error in dismissing the application preferred by the petitioner/plaintiff for the reasons recorded noticed herein above. 8. Coming to the application under Order VII Rule 14 (3) CPC, undoubtedly as per provisions of Order VII Rule 14(3) of CPC, a document which ought to have been produced in court by the plaintiff when the plaint is presented or to be entered in the list 5 to be added or annexed to the plaint but is not produced or entered accordingly, shall not be without the leave of the court be received in the evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit. Thus, the document produced by the plaintiff even after filing of the plaint, can be received in evidence at any stage of the hearing with the leave of the court. But then, the provision requiring filing of the documents so also the list of the documents on which the plaintiff relies upon but the same are not in his possession, at the time of filing of plaint, has been incorporated by the legislature in its wisdom to avoid the unnecessary delay in adjudication and for expeditious disposal of the lis between the parties. Therefore, the plaintiff who wants to produce the documents at the later stage, invoking the provisions of Order VII Rule 14(3) must satisfy the court that the documents sought to be produced could not be produced at the appropriate stage on account of the fact that the same were not in his possession or he had no knowledge about the existence of the same. That apart, he must prima facie satisfy the court as to the relevancy of the documents sought to be produced at the belated stage, for adjudication of the dispute involved between the parties. Suffice it to say that the plaintiff cannot claim filing of the documents at belated stage as a matter of right without furnishing the satisfactory explanation regarding non production thereof at the appropriate stage. 6 9. It is to be noticed that in the instance case, no reasonable explanation has been set out in the application preferred by the plaintiff as to why the documents sought to be produced at such a belated stage, when the evidence of the plaintiff has already been completed and the matter is posted for defendants evidence, were not produced at the appropriate stage. Further a perusal of the application reveals that the relevancy of the documents to the controversy involved and its necessity for the adjudication of the lis between the parties, has also not been explained. This Court is of considered opinion that in absence of an explanation regarding the belated production of the documents and relevancy of the documents to the controversy involved, order impugned passed by the trial court refusing to take the documents on record, does not suffer from any jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 10. In the result, the writ petition fails, and it is hereby dismissed in limine. (SANGEET LODHA),J. rp