Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Madhu Ramesh Jain, filed a writ petition challenging a common order dated 5th September 2015 passed by the 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon, in Regular Civil Suit No. 120 of 2014. The impugned order rejected the petitioner's applications at Exhibits 26 and 46, which sought permission to produce certain documents. The petitioner had filed the suit against the State of Maharashtra, Tehsildar, Jalgaon City Municipal Corporation, and Superintendent of Land Records, seeking a declaration and injunction regarding a property. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner applied to produce documents that were in the custody of a public officer, which he claimed could not be obtained earlier despite due diligence. The trial court rejected the applications on the ground that the documents were sought to be produced at a belated stage without sufficient cause. The High Court, after hearing the parties, observed that the trial court had not properly considered the explanation offered by the petitioner. The court noted that the documents were in the custody of a public officer and the petitioner had shown sufficient cause for the delay. The High Court held that the trial court ought to have allowed the production of documents under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The court set aside the impugned order and directed the trial court to permit the petitioner to produce the documents, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 500 to each of the contesting respondents. The writ petition was allowed with costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Production of Documents - Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC - Sufficient Cause - The plaintiff sought to produce documents which were in the custody of a public officer and could not be obtained earlier despite due diligence. The trial court rejected the application on the ground of delay. The High Court held that the trial court ought to have considered the explanation and allowed the production, as the documents were relevant and the plaintiff had shown sufficient cause. (Paras 1-6) B) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Order 7 Rule 11 CPC - Not Applicable - The trial court's order rejecting the application for production of documents did not amount to rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The High Court clarified that the impugned order was only regarding the production of documents and not a final adjudication. (Para 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the plaintiff's application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC for production of documents at a belated stage, when the documents were in the custody of a public officer and the plaintiff had shown sufficient cause for the delay.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order dated 5th September 2015, and directed the trial court to permit the petitioner to produce the documents subject to payment of costs of Rs. 500 to each of the contesting respondents.
Law Points
- Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC
- Order 13 Rule 1 CPC
- Section 151 CPC
- Sufficient cause for late production of documents
- Documents in custody of public officer
