SATTAR DIN Vs. RASHID MOHAMMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged order dated 28.11.2019, passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge, Court No. II, Amb, District Una, H.P. in Civil Suit No. 266 of 2020, titled as Bali Mohammad & others Vs. Rashid Mohammad and others, vide which an application filed by the present petitioner, who is the plaintiff before the learned Trial Court under Order 7, Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure has been dismissed.

(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and also gone through the documents appended with the petition, including the impugned order.

(3.) It is not in dispute that the suit stood filed as far back as in the year 2010. It is further not in dispute that an application which was filed under Order 7, Rule 14 of the Civil Procedure Code to place on record certified copy of mutation No. 740, dated 22.02.2008, was filed in the year 2019. A perusal of the application, which is on record, demonstrates that the only reason mentioned in the same as to why the said document could not earlier be placed on record is that there was inadvertence on the part of the applicant. Learned Trial Court while rejecting the application so filed by the petitioner observed that the suit was filed by the petitioner as far back as in the year 2010 challenging the mutation on the basis of an alleged fake Will and the application under Order 7, Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed in the year 2019 and that too at the stage of arguments that application was filed on the plea of inadvertence under Order 7, Rule 14 of the Code to place on record the documents in issue. Learned Trial Court held that the word inadvertence does not gives a right to the applicant to file application under Order 7, Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure any time. With these observations, learned Trial Court has dismissed the application.