SHRIAL SYIEM Vs. KLESTINA SYIEM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with clause 6 of the High Court of Meghalaya (Jurisdiction over District Council Courts) Order, 2014 has been preferred against the Judgment dtd. 2/9/2020 passed by the learned Judge, District Council Court, Khasi Hills in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2017, upholding the order dtd. 5/12/2016 passed by the learned Trial Court in Title Suit No. 8 of 2009.

(2.) The brief facts are that the learned Trial Court by the order dtd. 5/12/2016, had allowed and admitted 20 photo copies of documents filed by the respondents/plaintiffs at the stage of framing of issues which the petitioner/defendant contends is contrary to Order 7 Rule 14 of the CPC. On appeal before the Court of the Judge, District Council Court, the same was upheld by Judgment dtd. 2/9/2020. The petitioner thereby being aggrieved, is before this Court, and has put a case that the said documents filed by the plaintiffs are neither part of the Plaint, nor any reference made to them in the pleadings and that the impugned order allowing the introduction of these documents has the effect of changing the entire course and nature of the Suit without even the Plaint being amended.

(3.) The short point that is to be decided in the instant revision is whether the Courts below were correct in allowing additional documents to be filed which are not part of the Plaint at the stage of framing of issues, notwithstanding the fact that before the District Council Courts, the CPC is not applied in letter, but in spirit and as such, in the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the learned Courts below were justified in not adhering to the provisions of Order 7 Rule 14 (3) of the CPC which has laid down as follows:-