MOHAMMAD ANWAR KHAN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been file challenging the order dated 6.03. 2018 passed by Seventh Civil Judge, Class-I, Gwalior passed in Civil Suit No. 148-A/2013 whereby the trial court allowed the the application filed by the defendants under Order 8 Rule 1 (3) CPC. It is alleged by the counsel for the petitioner that the order impugned is contrary to the order passed by this court in WP. No. 7388/2014 dated 21.11. 2016. It is alleged that on the earlier occasion writ petition was preferred by the state of M.P. before this hon' ble court being WP.7388/14 challenging the order dated 12th, October 2012 whereby the application for review has been allowed directing the respondents to submit documents in support of the averments made in paras 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the written statements. Writ petition was finally heard and decided on 21 st, of November 2016 with the direction to the authorities to file specific affidavit in support of the averments made in paras 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the written statements. It is alleged that in compliance of the aforesaid order passed by this court, the application annexure P/6 dated 30th of January 2018 was filed, however, no affidavit was filed along with the application. Subsequently on 1st, of March 2018 the affidavit was filed. He has drawn attention of this court to the application filed by the respondents and has argued that from the bare perusal of the application, it appears that the said application is vague as there is no mention of the details of documents. The reason for not filing the document at the initial stage and relevancy of the document in the civil suit not even the date of the document has been mentioned. Thus, the trial court has committed an error in allowing the application without properly scrutinizing the contents of the application, therefore, he has filed the present petition for quashment of the order.

(2.) Per contra, learned Government Advocate has contended that the order passed by the learned trial court is just and proper although the application which has been filed by the officer-in- charge is not a detailed application but the fact remains that the Hon'ble High court has directed for filing an affidavit with respect to the averments made in para 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the written statement and placed reliance on the documents which are already on record. There are no other documents placed on record for which averments were made in the aforesaid paras of the written statement. He has contended that affidavit in compliance of the order has been subsequently filed on 1st, March 2018. He has further argued that from the bare perusal of the documents that the learned trial court has found that the aforesaid documents are important documents and necessary documents to be considered for just and proper disposal of the civil suit. Thus, in the interest of Justice the application under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC was allowed on the condition that at the time of evidence the original record pertaining to the averments shall be placed before the court and only thereafter exhibits will be marked on the documents and he has prayed for rejection of the writ petition.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.