SATISH KUMAR SHARMA Vs. SONIDEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dtd. 4/10/2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Thanagazi, in Civil Suit No.34/42/2011, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC was rejected.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has given sufficient explanation for the delay in production of the aforesaid documents, but the same was not taken on record. He further submits that though the defendant was permitted to file documents vide order dtd. 9/9/2025 without any sufficient explanation for the delay, yet the petitioner's application for taking the aforesaid documents was declined on the ground of the delay. He also submits that the aforesaid documents are certified copies of the revenue record and have a material bearing on the matter to be adjudicated; he therefore prays that the impugned order may kindly be set aside, and the application dtd. 24/9/2025 for taking documents on record may kindly be allowed.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents seriously opposes the aforesaid submissions and submits that the suit in question was filed in 2011, and the application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC was filed at a belated stage in 2025. He further submits that the documents appended to the said application are not relevant to the adjudication of the lis and no sufficient explanation has been furnished by the petitioner for the delay in filing the said application and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.