KANHAIYALAL Vs. PRIYAMBADA MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has called in question the order dated 17.4.2012, whereby his four applications preferred under Order 7 Rule 14 ; Order 13 Rule 10 ; Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC; and application under section 65 of the Evidence Act have been rejected by the court below.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY, the said order is passed by the court below in a case filed under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC. The plaintiffs are admittedly not party to the main suit. Application u/O. 7 R. 14 CPC: By filing this application (Annexure P/3), the petitioners prayed for producing certain sale deeds on record. The respondents filed their reply and vehemently opposed the same. The court below rejected the said application on the ground that as per Order 7 Rule 14, these documents should have been filed by the petitioners along with a list at the relevant time. The petitioners have filed it after a considerable long time and the documents have no special importance for the adjudication of the matter.

(3.) THE judgment and decree was passed on 28.2.2000. The petitioners filed the present suit under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC in 2003 (Civil Suit No.53/2003). The matter earlier travelled to this Court in M.A.No.127/2004 and this Court by order dated 10.5.2005 passed an order with the consent of parties, whereby appeal was disposed of with the direction to the trial court to decide the application on or before 31.12.2005. Thereafter the evidence of the petitioners was recorded but for all these years the petitioners have not chosen to file these documents. In the considered opinion of this Court, Order 7 Rule 14(3) is brought in the Book to ensure that no leave is granted by the Court in a mechanical manner. This provision was made to ensure that under the garb of Order 7 Rule 14 the documents are not filed belatedly with an oblique motive to delay the proceedings. I am unable to read the provision as suggested by Shri N.K.Gupta that whenever such a leave is prayed for, it should be allowed, as a matter of course, with some costs in the event of delay in making such a prayer. In the present case, as per the orders passed by this Court the matter should have been finally decided by 31.12.2005. For last seven years the matter is pending before the court below and fruits of the judgment and decree could not be realised by the claimants. The delay is a relevant consideration even for deciding the application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC. The court below has given cogent and plausible reasons. This Court is not exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution as an appellate court. There is no procedural impropriety and illegality in the order passed by the court below. The order is neither without jurisdiction nor illegal in nature. Another view is possible is not a ground for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution, as held in Shalini Shyam Shetty and another vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 329. Application u/O. 13 Rule 10 CPC: