IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1508 of 2006 BIBI ZAHADA JABEEN Versus MOST.RITA VERMA & ORS ----------- 2 04.12.2008 The question of law in this application is as to whether a suit for specific performance of contract could have been filed without annexing original agreement for sale? Order VII Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure lays down as follows:- “ [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 documents in a list, and shall produce it in Court when the plaint is presented by him and shall, at the same time deliver the 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 - 2 - 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 plaintiff’s witnesses, or, handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.)” The Court below has not gone into this aspect as to whether the plaint was presented along with a copy of Mahadnama (agreement for sale) and its finding recorded in the impugned order that original document was not produced even at the stage of framing of issues, was good enough for the Court to disallow the prayer of the opposite party. Accordingly, if the Court was impressed with the illness on the old age of the plaintiffs-opposite parties for condoning the delay of more than eight years in purported exercise of power under Order VII Rule 14(3), it had to give cogent reasons for the same. The impugned order passed by this Court below allowing a cost of Rs. 100/- for accepting the Mahadnama (agreement for sale) would thus definitely amount to a clear jurisdictional error. - 3 - Accordingly, this Civil Revision application is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the Court below is directed to re-examine the matter strictly in terms of Order VII Rule 14 read with Order XIII Rule 1 of C.P.C. by taking into account that the suit in hand is one for specific performance of contract and the document in question (Mahadanama) on which the plaintiff had brought the suit was nonetheless very basis of the suit. this Civil Revision Application is accordingly allowed to the extent indicted above. Bibhash (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)