Kedarnath Gupta v. Veyant Kaur

Judgment

#5. ----Plaintiff/Petitioner Versus Veyant Kaur W/o Late Shri Mahendra Singh, Age About 68 Years, Gurmeet Singh S/o Late Shri Mahendra Singh, Age About 44 Years,

Rajkumar S/o Late Shri Mahendra Singh, Age About 38 Years, All residents of Near Surjeet School, Adarsh Nagar, Bharatpur (Raj.) Sub- Registrar, Bharatpur (Raj.) Mukesh Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Teekaram Sharma, R/o Tilak Nagar, Bharatpur, Tehsil And District Bharatpur (Raj.) ----Defendants/Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aditya Khandelwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nikhlesh Katara HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 27/10/2025

#1. By way of this writ petition, the plaintiff/petitioner has assailed the order dated 17.09.2025 passed in Civil Suit No. 15/2021, whereby the learned Trial Court dismissed the application for taking certain documents on record filed by the plaintiff/petitioner under Order 7 Rule 14(3) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, on the ground of delay.

#2. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that the plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 18.09.2015 and for permanent injunction. The suit was instituted in 2021. On 16.11.2023, the evidence of the plaintiff/petitioner was closed, and the matter was fixed for [2025:RJ-JP:43060] (2 of 5) [CW-15264/2025] the defendants/respondents' evidence. During the course of the trial, on 23.01.2024, the defendants/respondents filed an application under Order 8 Rule 1A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for the production of additional documents, which was allowed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 19.02.2024. Consequently, the plaintiff/petitioner was granted liberty to file documents in rebuttal. Thereafter, by order dated 09.05.2025, another application filed by the defendants/respondents under Order 8 Rule 1(3) CPC was allowed, and certain additional documents were taken on record. The defendants/respondents concluded their evidence on 07.08.2025. Subsequently, on

26.08.2025, the plaintiff/petitioner filed an application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) read with Section 151 CPC for taking certain documents on record. The said application was opposed by defendant/respondent No. 5, who contended that the documents sought to be produced were already within the power and possession of the plaintiff/petitioner, and the same could not be permitted to fill the lacuna in the evidence.

#3. After hearing the arguments advanced by both the parties on the said application, the learned Trial Court, vide its impugned order dated 17.09.2025, rejected the application dated

26.08.2025 filed by the plaintiff/petitioner. The Court observed that the documents sought to be produced were old and that no satisfactory explanation had been provided as to why the same were not filed earlier, despite being in the power and possession of the plaintiff/petitioner.

#4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner submits that the learned Trial Court has erred in dismissing the application despite [2025:RJ-JP:43060] (3 of 5) [CW-15264/2025] the order dated 19.02.2024, whereby, while allowing the application filed by defendant/respondent No. 5 under Order 8 Rule 1A of CPC, liberty was expressly granted to the plaintiff/petitioner to file certain documents in rebuttal. He further submits that the impugned order overlooks this liberty and erroneously rejects the application on the ground of delay. He further submits that all the documents sought to be produced are relevant and necessary to controvert the documents filed by defendant/respondent No. 5, which were allowed to be taken on record vide orders dated 19.02.2024 and 09.05.2025. He further submits that the said documents are indispensable for the proper adjudication of the main suit, and therefore, they ought to have been taken on record.

#5. Learned counsel further submits that since the main contesting defendant/respondent No. 5 is represented through counsel as a caveator, issuance of notice to the other parties is not necessary, as the application was contested only by defendant/respondent No. 5.

#6. Per contra, learned counsel for defendant/respondent No. 5 opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the plaintiff/petitioner and contended that the plaintiff/petitioner cannot be permitted to fill up the lacuna in his case by producing such documents at this stage. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the present writ petition.

#7. Heard and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material available on record. [2025:RJ-JP:43060] (4 of 5) [CW-15264/2025]

#8. From the record, it is evident that the suit for specific performance was filed in respect of an agreement to sell dated

18.09.2015, instituted in the year 2021. The evidence of the plaintiff/petitioner was completed on 16.11.2023. During the course of the defendants/respondents’ evidence, certain documents were produced through an application filed under Order 8 Rule 1(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The said application was allowed vide order dated 19.02.2024, and specific liberty was granted to the plaintiff/petitioner to file documents in rebuttal. Thereafter, on 09.05.2025, another application filed by the defendants/respondents under Order 8 Rule 1(3) CPC was allowed. Upon conclusion of the defendants/respondents’ evidence on 07.08.2025, the plaintiff/petitioner filed the present application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) read with Section 151 CPC for taking certain documents on record.

#9. From the record, it is also evident that while allowing the defendants/respondents’ application, the learned Trial Court had granted liberty to the plaintiff/petitioner to file documents in rebuttal. However, when the plaintiff/petitioner filed the said documents along with the present application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC, the learned Trial Court dismissed the application on the ground of delay, overlooking the fact that liberty to place such documents on record in rebuttal had already been granted.

#10. In view of the foregoing observations, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Trial Court has committed a jurisdictional error in rejecting the application dated 26.08.2025 filed by the plaintiff/petitioner and has further erred in not taking [2025:RJ-JP:43060] (5 of 5) [CW-15264/2025] on record the documents sought to be produced by the plaintiff/petitioner.

#11. It is also pertinent to mention that the learned Trial Court rejected the application merely on the ground of delay, whereas it is a well-settled principle of law that the rules of procedure are the handmaid of justice. When there is a conflict between procedural technicalities and the cause of substantial justice, the latter must prevail.

#12. Considering the nature of the documents and the liberty granted by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 19.02.2024, it is apparent that all the documents sought to be produced are necessary for the proper adjudication of the main suit. Therefore, learned Trial Court has committed illegality in rejecting the said application.

#13. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands allowed. The order dated 17.09.2025 is quashed and the application filed by the plaintiff/petitioner dated 26.08.2025 is also allowed, and the learned Trial Court is directed to take the documents sought to be produced on record. In order to compensate for the delay occasioned in filing the application, the plaintiff/petitioner shall pay the costs of Rs. 10,000/- to the respondent No.5.

#14. The learned Trial Court is expected to decide the case expeditiously and shall not entertain any unreasonable or unnecessary request for adjournment.

#15. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. Seema/3 (MANEESH SHARMA),J