IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.143 of 2008 Judgment reserved on:19.06.2008. Decided on: June 20, 2008. Narain Singh Bramta …..Petitioner. VERSUS HP Housing and Urban Devp. Authority …..Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1No For the petitioner : Mr.G.C.Gupta, Sr.Advocate with Ms.Benu Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr.N.K.Sood,, Advocate. Kuldip Singh, Judge. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by plaintiff for quashing and setting aside order dated 10.4.2008 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.3, Shimla in Civil Suit No.140/1 of 1999 dismissing the application of the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC seeking leave for placing on record some documents. 2. The facts, in brief, are that petitioner filed a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction that he is entitled to allotment of Plot No.A-2, Phase-I, New Shimla. A prayer for permanent prohibitory 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes …2… injunction was also made restraining the respondent from allotting the said plot to anybody else except petitioner. It has been submitted that during the pendency of the suit the matter was listed before the Lok Adalat but dispute could not be settled between the parties. The application for amendment of the plaint was filed in April 2004 which was allowed on 1.8.2006. The written statement to amended plaint was filed on 6.11.2006 and the petitioner filed replication to the said written statement in March 2007 and the case was fixed for evidence of the petitioner. 3. The petitioner summoned his witnesses but the complete record, which was summoned by the petitioner, was not brought by the witnesses and in absence of those documents the statements of the witnesses could not be recorded. The documents were not supplied to the petitioner by respondent despite various demands. The petitioner was compelled to invoke the provisions of Right to Information Act for obtaining documents from the respondent which were supplied to him on 19.9.2007 and 29.9.2007. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC along with documents seeking leave of the Court for placing those documents on record. 4. It has also been submitted that initially the suit was filed against Shimla Development Authority but during the pendency of the suit Shimla Development Authority was merged with Himachal Pradesh Housing Board and thereafter respondent authority was …3… created and as such the petitioner had to move applications for change of the name of the respondent which also took some time. 5. The application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC was contested by the respondent and the learned Court dismissed the application of the petitioner on 10.4.2008. It has been submitted that most of the documents which petitioner wants to place on record by way of application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC are of respondent and petitioner took steps for summoning the witnesses from the office of respondent but those witnesses did not bring complete record for placing on suit file. The petitioner is not at fault for not placing those documents on suit file earlier. The petitioner filed the application for placing on record the documents with the permission of the Court immediately when the petitioner got those documents. The petitioner is not responsible for causing delay in the suit. The documents, if not permitted to be brought on record, will cause serious prejudice to the petitioner. 6. The respondent has contested the petition by filing reply and has taken preliminary objections that the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is not maintainable nor the application filed by the petitioner in the Court below was maintainable. On merits, the thrust of the reply of the respondent is that petitioner is delaying the decision in the suit. The impugned order is just and legal. The petitioner cannot be permitted to fill up the lacunae. …4… 7. Heard and perused the record. It is not in dispute that after framing of the issues some dates were fixed for the evidence of the petitioner in the Court below but evidence could not be recorded on most of the time on the ground that concerned witnesses have not brought the complete record. It is not the case of respondent that copies of documents were supplied to the petitioner when he demanded such copies. The respondent supplied the copies of documents to the petitioner only when he invoked provisions of Right to Information Act. It has also not been denied by respondent that except for Jamabandis the other documents which the petitioner intends to place on suit file with the leave of the Court are from the record of respondent. The respondent has not disputed the relevancy of the documents which the petitioner intends to bring on record. The evidence of the petitioner has not commenced. The respondent will get full opportunity to cross examine the witnesses of petitioner and rebut the evidence led by the petitioner. Therefore, no prejudice will be caused to respondent in case he is permitted to place said documents on the suit file. On the contrary, if such permission is not granted then the case of the petitioner is likely to be prejudiced. The learned Court below has dismissed the application on the ground of delay and maintainability. No finding has been recorded regarding the relevancy of the documents. The respondent has not taken the objection of the relevancy of documents. The application is maintainable, the Court below has erred in dismissing the application …5… on the ground of maintainability. The impugned order is not sustainable. However, fact cannot be ignored that suit was filed in the year 1999 and due to one reason or the other the evidence of the petitioner has not yet been recorded. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is allowed. Petitioner is permitted to place copies of documents on suit file in the Court below which he has filed along with application under Order 7 Rule 14 C.P.C. subject to payment of Rs.1000 as cost. The suit is quite old, therefore, Court below is directed to decide the suit expeditiously and preferably by 31.12.2008. 9. The parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the Court below on 26.06.2008. The Registry is directed to send the record of the Court below so as to reach that Court before the date fixed. CMP No.414 of 2008: Infructuous. June 20, 2008. ( Kuldip Singh ) (soni) Judge.