KAMLA DEVI Vs. SUNITA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction which was registered as Civil Suit No. 8A/12.

(2.) THE petitioner stated that she is the wife of Indal Singh. Respondents No. 1 to 4 filed their written statement and denied this averment. It is stated by the respondents that the petitioner is not the wife of Indal Singh. Thereafter parties led their evidence. The petitioner obtained copies of notices issued by the Trial Court in case No. 64A/1997 filed by Man Singh (Respondent No. 4). In addition, she obtained copy of order sheets of the said Civil Suit dated 22.12.2000 (Annexure P/5 and P/6) respectively. Certified copy of those documents were filed by the petitioner before Court below to show that respondent Man Singh himself described the petitioner as widow of Indal Singh. At this stage, petitioner filed an application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) C.P.C. to take those documents on record. The Court below decided the said application by order dated 25.07.2013 (Annexure P/7) and gave a specific finding that the said documents are relevant and necessary for lawful adjudication of the matter. The documents were accordingly taken on record. At this stage, petitioner filed an application under Order 18 Rule 17 C.P.C. on 06.01.2014 (Annexure P/8). The respondents filed their reply Annexure P/9. Parties were heard on this application. The Court below by the impugned order dated 21.01.2014, rejected the said application.

(3.) ON the other hand, Shri N.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 4 submits that order 18 Rule 17 C.P.C. makes it crystal clear that power can be exercised by the Court for the purpose of removing any doubt which is cropped up in the mind of Court. It cannot be done to fill up the lacunae by the plaintiff. In support of this contention he relied on : 2009 (4) SCC 410 (Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar (dead) Through LRs Vs. Sharad Chandra Prabhakar Gogate) and : 2011 (11) SCC 275 (K.K. Velusamy Vs. N. Palanisamy). Lastly, he relied on : 2013 (14) SCC 1 (Bagai Construction Vs. Gupta Building Material Store). In rejoinder, Shri Chaturvedi submits that judgments cited by Shri Gupta have no application in the facts and circumstances of the present case. It is not a case where the documents were already on record when plaintiff deposed his statement and plaintiff failed to rely no those documents. Thus, there is no omission on the part of the petitioner/plaintiff.