State Of U.P.Through Distt. Judge Barabanki v. Counsel for

1. Heard Sri Hemant Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondents. None appears for the private respondents despite the name of Sri Alok Singh Chauhan and Sri M.P. Yadav, learned counsel, has been printed in the additional cause list.

2. It will be worthwhile to recall that the matter was taken up on 13th November, 2025 and on the said date as well, none appeared for the private respondents.

3. The Court had heard the learned counsel for the State-petitioner and also posted the matter for today.

4. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner assails the order dated

06.05.2008 passed by the respondent no. 1 in Civil Revision No. 21 of 2008 whereby the revision was dismissed affirming the order passed by the Trial Court dated 26.02.2008 whereby an application moved by the State for placing certain documents on record was rejected.

5. The record would indicate that the petitioners as plaintiffs had instituted a suit before Munsif, Barabanki against Ram Kishore which came to be registered as Regular Suit No. 31 of 1995. The said suit was contested by the defendant who is the private respondent no. 3 and after exchange of pleadings, issues were framed and the matter went on for trial. 2 WRIC No. 1001447 of 2009

6. The petitioner who was the plaintiff had also filed the examination-in- chief of P.W. 1. The said witness was cross-examined and later the impugned application dated 14.01.2008, was filed, a copy of which is on record as Annexure No. 5. By means of the said application, the petitioner wanted to introduce a document which is a copy of the Khatauni relating to Fasli Year 1413-1418.

7. It is the averment in the application that the said document is extremely important for the case of the petitioner. By inadvertence, the same was left out and at a much later stage, the files available in the office of the petitioner were rummaged and then the said document came to be noticed and the same were placed on record.

8. After considering the objections to the said application, the Trial Court by means of order dated 26.02.2008 rejected the application bearing Paper No. 150 fixing 17.03.2008 as the next date for evidence of the plaintiff.

9. The Trial Court found that the said application was delayed and there was no sufficient ground indicated, coupled with the fact that the application had been moved in a casual manner even without being supported by an affidavit so the veracity of the averments could not be relied upon.

10. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a revision which on the admission itself was dismissed as not maintainable noticing that it was an interlocutory order and in case if the petitioner was aggrieved, it could raise the said objections in appeal. It is being aggrieved against the two orders, that the instant petition has been filed.

11. The submission of learned Standing Counsel for the State-petitioner is that the petitioner had instituted a suit seeking a decree of permanent injunction as well as mandatory injunction seeking eviction of the defendant of the suit who is the private respondent no. 3 herein.

12. It is urged that in the plaint, a copy of which is on record as Annexure No. 3, in paragraph 1, it was clearly stated that the disputed property in question, earlier belonged to Sri Indrawati. The said land had been acquired by the State and the name of the beneficiary is also duly 3 WRIC No. 1001447 of 2009 recorded in the Khatauni.

13. The title of the plaintiff is on the basis of acquisition made under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The same came to be contested and it is further urged that without placing the said document on record, the plaintiff would be severely prejudiced in contesting the case on merits. Apart from the fact that, the delay if any, at the behest of the plaintiff in filing the document can always be compensated by awarding costs to the defendant. It is also urged that the ultimate aim of the court is to to substantial justice and the rights of any party may not be defeated on mere technicality.

14. It is thus urged that both the Trial Court as well as the Revisional Court ignored this aspect of the matter and merely on technicalities, the impugned orders have been passed which deserve to be set aside.

15. The Court has considered the aforesaid submissions and also perused the material on record.

16. Certain undisputed facts that emerge from the record are, that the petitioners themselves were the plaintiffs before the Court. From a perusal of the plaint and more specifically paragraph 1, it would reveal that the plaintiffs were aware of how it had acquired the title, i.e. on the basis of the acquisition of the land in terms of Act of 1894. Once, the land stood acquired, it ought and must have been recorded in the revenue records which are maintained by the State itself.

17. The suit was instituted in the year 1995 and after the exchange of pleadings, the issues were framed. The plaintiffs (petitioner herein) had filed their examination-in-chief of P.W. 1 who was even cross-examined and till then it never occurred that the basic document which is the basis of the plaintiffs' suit which ought to have been presented along with the filing of the plaint in terms of Order VII Rule 14 C.P.C. was not placed on record.

18. There was another opportunity for the State for filing the document i.e. at the time of framing of the issues, in terms of Order XIII Rule 1 C.P.C. However, yet again the document was not filed and after 4 WRIC No. 1001447 of 2009 commencement of trial and upon the conclusion of the cross-examination of P.W. 1 that the plaintiff attempted to introduce the said document.

19. Apparently, considering the reasoning given by the Trial Court, it cannot be said that view taken by the Trial Court was preposterous which requires interference for the reason that whether it is the State or any private litigant whosoever contests the trial, the basis of their suit is to be placed along with the plaint. Once, a reference to the said document which was made in paragraph 1 of the plaint, it was but natural for the plaintiff to have filed the same but it was never done. The nature of the document is such that it was easily available and in power and possession of the plaintiff and it cannot be said that for some reason that they did not have the document or could not place it on record at the given time.

20. Considering the application which was filed, it would indicate that it is neither accompanied by an affidavit nor any worthwhile reasoning has been given as to what prevented the State to place the said document on record for about 12 years. It is a clear case where the trial was protracted on account of such lapses where the the State is the plaintiff and contesting the matter, who is supposed to be a model litigant.

21. The Revisional Court has also rejected the revision, however, noticing that the suit of the year 1995 has remained pending for three decades, coupled with the fact that the respondent has also not come forward to participate and also noticing that only on 17.01.2025 (as informed by the learned Standing Counsel) that the examination-in-chief of P.W. 2 was filed and the cross-examination of the said witness could only commence on 13.11.2025 whereafter the next date fixed is 25.11.2025.

22. In the given circumstances where the evidence has yet not concluded and looking into the totality of the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the clear opinion that in order to do substantial justice, the document which is in nature of a Khatauni which is a public document can be taken on record, however, since the State has acted irresponsibly to delay trial by decades then it must be put to terms, hence, the document be taken on record subject to payment of cost of Rs. 50,000/- to be deposited with the Trial Court. 5 WRIC No. 1001447 of 2009

23. Upon such deposit, prior to the next date i.e. 25.11.2025, half of the same shall be paid to the defendant of the suit and the remaining half shall be deposited through the court concerned with the District Legal Service Authority.

24. It is also made clear that the State shall not be granted any privilege to prolong the litigation, hence, any attempt to delay by either party shall be occasioned with costs to be levied by the court considering the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Vinod Seth v. Devinder Bajaj; (2010) 8 SCC 1. The proceedings of Regular Suit No. 31 of 1995 shall stand expedite and the Trial Court shall endevour to fix the date of the suit on weekly basis so that the proceedings can be taken to its logical conclusion as expeditiously as possible.

25. With the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. November 14, 2025 Asheesh (Jaspreet Singh,J.) ASHEESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Hemant Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondents. None appears for the private respondents despite the name of Sri Alok Singh Chauhan and Sri M.P. Yadav, learned counsel, has been printed in the additional cause list.

2. It will be worthwhile to recall that the matter was taken up on 13th November, 2025 and on the said date as well, none appeared for the private respondents.

3. The Court had heard the learned counsel for the State-petitioner and also posted the matter for today.

4. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner assails the order dated

06.05.2008 passed by the respondent no. 1 in Civil Revision No. 21 of 2008 whereby the revision was dismissed affirming the order passed by the Trial Court dated 26.02.2008 whereby an application moved by the State for placing certain documents on record was rejected.

5. The record would indicate that the petitioners as plaintiffs had instituted a suit before Munsif, Barabanki against Ram Kishore which came to be registered as Regular Suit No. 31 of 1995. The said suit was contested by the defendant who is the private respondent no. 3 and after exchange of pleadings, issues were framed and the matter went on for trial. 2 WRIC No. 1001447 of 2009

6. The petitioner who was the plaintiff had also filed the examination-in- chief of P.W. 1. The said witness was cross-examined and later the impugned application dated 14.01.2008, was filed, a copy of which is on record as Annexure No. 5. By means of the said application, the petitioner wanted to introduce a document which is a copy of the Khatauni relating to Fasli Year 1413-1418.

7. It is the averment in the application that the said document is extremely important for the case of the petitioner. By inadvertence, the same was left out and at a much later stage, the files available in the office of the petitioner were rummaged and then the said document came to be noticed and the same were placed on record.

8. After considering the objections to the said application, the Trial Court by means of order dated 26.02.2008 rejected the application bearing Paper No. 150 fixing 17.03.2008 as the next date for evidence of the plaintiff.

9. The Trial Court found that the said application was delayed and there was no sufficient ground indicated, coupled with the fact that the application had been moved in a casual manner even without being supported by an affidavit so the veracity of the averments could not be relied upon.

10. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a revision which on the admission itself was dismissed as not maintainable noticing that it was an interlocutory order and in case if the petitioner was aggrieved, it could raise the said objections in appeal. It is being aggrieved against the two orders, that the instant petition has been filed.

11. The submission of learned Standing Counsel for the State-petitioner is that the petitioner had instituted a suit seeking a decree of permanent injunction as well as mandatory injunction seeking eviction of the defendant of the suit who is the private respondent no. 3 herein.

12. It is urged that in the plaint, a copy of which is on record as Annexure No. 3, in paragraph 1, it was clearly stated that the disputed property in question, earlier belonged to Sri Indrawati. The said land had been acquired by the State and the name of the beneficiary is also duly 3 WRIC No. 1001447 of 2009 recorded in the Khatauni.

13. The title of the plaintiff is on the basis of acquisition made under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The same came to be contested and it is further urged that without placing the said document on record, the plaintiff would be severely prejudiced in contesting the case on merits. Apart from the fact that, the delay if any, at the behest of the plaintiff in filing the document can always be compensated by awarding costs to the defendant. It is also urged that the ultimate aim of the court is to to substantial justice and the rights of any party may not be defeated on mere technicality.

14. It is thus urged that both the Trial Court as well as the Revisional Court ignored this aspect of the matter and merely on technicalities, the impugned orders have been passed which deserve to be set aside.

15. The Court has considered the aforesaid submissions and also perused the material on record.

16. Certain undisputed facts that emerge from the record are, that the petitioners themselves were the plaintiffs before the Court. From a perusal of the plaint and more specifically paragraph 1, it would reveal that the plaintiffs were aware of how it had acquired the title, i.e. on the basis of the acquisition of the land in terms of Act of 1894. Once, the land stood acquired, it ought and must have been recorded in the revenue records which are maintained by the State itself.

17. The suit was instituted in the year 1995 and after the exchange of pleadings, the issues were framed. The plaintiffs (petitioner herein) had filed their examination-in-chief of P.W. 1 who was even cross-examined and till then it never occurred that the basic document which is the basis of the plaintiffs' suit which ought to have been presented along with the filing of the plaint in terms of Order VII Rule 14 C.P.C. was not placed on record.

18. There was another opportunity for the State for filing the document i.e. at the time of framing of the issues, in terms of Order XIII Rule 1 C.P.C. However, yet again the document was not filed and after 4 WRIC No. 1001447 of 2009 commencement of trial and upon the conclusion of the cross-examination of P.W. 1 that the plaintiff attempted to introduce the said document.

19. Apparently, considering the reasoning given by the Trial Court, it cannot be said that view taken by the Trial Court was preposterous which requires interference for the reason that whether it is the State or any private litigant whosoever contests the trial, the basis of their suit is to be placed along with the plaint. Once, a reference to the said document which was made in paragraph 1 of the plaint, it was but natural for the plaintiff to have filed the same but it was never done. The nature of the document is such that it was easily available and in power and possession of the plaintiff and it cannot be said that for some reason that they did not have the document or could not place it on record at the given time.

20. Considering the application which was filed, it would indicate that it is neither accompanied by an affidavit nor any worthwhile reasoning has been given as to what prevented the State to place the said document on record for about 12 years. It is a clear case where the trial was protracted on account of such lapses where the the State is the plaintiff and contesting the matter, who is supposed to be a model litigant.

21. The Revisional Court has also rejected the revision, however, noticing that the suit of the year 1995 has remained pending for three decades, coupled with the fact that the respondent has also not come forward to participate and also noticing that only on 17.01.2025 (as informed by the learned Standing Counsel) that the examination-in-chief of P.W. 2 was filed and the cross-examination of the said witness could only commence on 13.11.2025 whereafter the next date fixed is 25.11.2025.

22. In the given circumstances where the evidence has yet not concluded and looking into the totality of the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the clear opinion that in order to do substantial justice, the document which is in nature of a Khatauni which is a public document can be taken on record, however, since the State has acted irresponsibly to delay trial by decades then it must be put to terms, hence, the document be taken on record subject to payment of cost of Rs. 50,000/- to be deposited with the Trial Court. 5 WRIC No. 1001447 of 2009

23. Upon such deposit, prior to the next date i.e. 25.11.2025, half of the same shall be paid to the defendant of the suit and the remaining half shall be deposited through the court concerned with the District Legal Service Authority.

24. It is also made clear that the State shall not be granted any privilege to prolong the litigation, hence, any attempt to delay by either party shall be occasioned with costs to be levied by the court considering the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Vinod Seth v. Devinder Bajaj; (2010) 8 SCC 1. The proceedings of Regular Suit No. 31 of 1995 shall stand expedite and the Trial Court shall endevour to fix the date of the suit on weekly basis so that the proceedings can be taken to its logical conclusion as expeditiously as possible.

25. With the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. November 14, 2025 Asheesh (Jaspreet Singh,J.) ASHEESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench