DEVENDRA KUMAR NAYAK Vs. SUDHA NAYAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners/defendants no.1 & 2 have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by the order dated 24.09.2013 (Annexure-P-1) passed by VIth Additional District Judge Sagar, in Civil Original Suit No.53-A/09, whereby their application filed under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC, permitting them to produce/file the annexed documents, has been dismissed.

(2.) Smt. Amrit Ruprah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners', after taking me through the averments of the petition as well as the papers placed on the record including the impugned application filed under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC., so also the impugned order argued that, their application has been dismissed without considering the relevancy and necessity of the annexed documents with the present matter, only on the ground that an earlier identical application filed by mentioning the provision of Order 11 Rule 14 of CPC., has already been dismissed vide order dated 21.6.2011 and such order was challenged by the present petitioners before this Court by way of writ petition No.11894/11. The same was dismissed as withdrawn at the request of the petitioners' counsel vide order 23.7.2013 (Annexure-P-9) with liberty to file the fresh application under Order VII Rule 14 of CPC before the trial Court. In continuation she said that, in view of the principle laid down by the apex Court in the matter of Arun Singh vs. Mohindra Kumar and others, 1964 AIR(SC) 993 in the matter of Smt. Sukhrani (dead) by L.R s and others vs. Hari Shanker and others, 1979 AIR(SC) 1436 and in the matter of Kashi Bai wd/o Hiralal (dead) through L.R. Pinkal Gupta vs. Sundarlal vaidh and others, 2007 5 MPHT 37, filing subsequent application under the same provision is not bar even after dismissal of the earlier application. In response of some query of the Court she said that, earlier application was filed by mentioning wrong provision of CPC., i.e. under Order 11 Rule 14 of CPC. that is why such application was dismissed, but the impugned application has been filed under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC., therefore, it ought to have been considered and allowed by the trial Court. She also said that such documents are relevant with the matter to prove the defence of the present petitioners and if such documents are not taken on record, then the petitioners have to suffer in a lot. With these submissions, she prayed to set aside the impugned order and allow her impugned application by admitting and allowing this petition.

(3.) Having heard the counsel, keeping in view her arguments, I have carefully gone through the papers placed on the record along with the impugned order.