HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B.: HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR SINHA WP. No.5055l2005 Deepak Kumar Sutaria Vs. lnderlal Agrawa! ORDER Post for Order:7 10912009 Sdl- _ sunil Kumar Smha Judge HIGH COURT OF CHHATTlsGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSITUTION OF INDIA Appearance : Shri Raja Sharma, Counsel for the petitioner. None for the respondents, though served. ORDER (09.09.2009) sumL KuMAR SINHA, J. i: The petitioner/plaintiff has fiied this petition under Article 227 ,of the Constitution of India, challenging the validity of order dated 09.08.2005 passed in Civil Suit No.1 5-B/2004 by V Additional District Judge, Raipur. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of certain amount and interest based on a promissory note. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner/plaintiff tiled an application under Order Vll Rule 14 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure for production of certain documents and another application under Order Vl Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment in the plaint. lt appears that both the applications were dismissed by the xx \ trial Court on the ground that they were tiled after delay and no \\ \ " x W.P. No.5055l2oo5 PETITIQNER Deepak Kumar Sutaria, S/o Shri Bhagwandas Sutaria, Aged about 33 years, R/o Sutaria Bhavan, Oppo. Jalaram Mandir, Tikrapara Road, Teh. & Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) Versus NON-APPLICANT lnderlal Agrawal, Aged about 44 years, Proprietar M/s. Bansal Dal Udyog, Mowa Teh. & District Raipur (C.G.) 2 W.P. No.5055/2005 affidavit of Girdhari Lal was med in support of the application under Order VII Rule 14(3) for fuing documents. Order VII Rule 14(3) provides that ar document which ought to be produced in Court by the plaintiff when the piaint is presented, or to be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint but is V 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. Admittedly, the plaintiff’s evidence had not taken place prior to ming of the said applications and the applications were tiled by the plaintiff before his evidence. Though the said documents were required to be produced by the plaintiff along with the plaint on some early occasion, preferably before framing of the issues, but if the same could not be filed and the plaintiff comes bonafidely with documents, the Court with a view to give complete justice to the parties, ought to have exercised discretion in favour of the plaintiff by taking the documents on record. So far as the application under Order Vl Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure is concerned, admittedly it was also tiled prior to the stage of plaintiff's evidence and it cannot be said that it was tiled after such a delay, which may cause prejudice to the other side. The amendment appears to be necessary for lawful disposal, of the dispute betweenvthe parties; therefore, l am of the opinion that the above applications tiled by the petitioner/plaintiff ought to have been allowed by the trial Court. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 09.08.2005 is set aside. The two applications filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order Vll Rule 14(3) and Order Vl Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure are allowed. \ ii/’ No order as to costs. shyna