BRAJESH KUMAR Vs. SANTOSH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-plaintiff is aggrieved by the impugned order dtd. 25/6/2019 (Annexure P/1), passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Burhanpur, RCSA No.2201/2014, whereby, an application of the petitioner-plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of CPC to take the gift deed on record has been rejected.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the petitioner-plaintiff has filed the suit claiming the decree of permanent injunction, partition and separation in relation to the suit property as mentioned in the plaint. According to the petitioner, his grandfather, namely, Shyamlal was in joint Hindu family alongwith defendants No.1 to 14. The grandfather of the petitioner-plaintiff passed away on 2/8/1985 and his wife Tara Devi passed away on 26/2/1986. Since, no partition had taken place and various properties were purchased from the fund of the joint family, therefore, the suit in question was instituted. The issues were framed on 20/6/2018. The petitioner filed affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of the CPC and the evidence was recorded. The petitioner submits that during the pendency of the civil suit, he got hold of the gift deed dtd. 28/9/2012 on 24/6/2019 which shows that certain properties such as Flat No.D-31 and 32 was gifted out of the joint family property. Hence, the petitioner filed an application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of the CPC before the trial Court to take the said gift deed on record. Learned trial Court vide order dtd. 25/6/2019 has rejected the application under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC and hence, the petitioner is in the instant petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is without any cogent reason. The gift deed in question is necessary to be considered for the proper and complete adjudication of the controversy and the learned trial Court has erred in rejecting the said application merely on the ground that the evidence of the plaintiff is closed. By placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Chakreshwari Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Manoharlal, (2017) 5 SCC 212 and decision of this court in the matter Sudheer Jain and Others Vs. Sunil Modi and Others, (2019) 3 MPLJ 312 he contends that law permits the parties to file additional evidence on any stage of the trial with the leave of the Court provided that the case is made out to seek such indulgence and, in the present case, the petitioner has been able to explain the reasons for delay, therefore, interference is sought for.