SAGYAN DEVI Vs. LALAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, who are legal heirs of the original plaintiff in Title Suit No.25 of 2006, are aggrieved of order dated 18.05.2015 by which the application under Order-VII Rule 14(3) for producing postal receipt of the legal notice dated 20.12.2003 has been rejected.

(2.) Plea urged on behalf of the petitioners is that in a suit for specific performance of the agreement to establish the plaintiff's readiness and willingness it is necessary for the plaintiff to produce postal receipt of the legal notice which was sent to the defendant for executing the sale-deed.

(3.) Title Suit No.25 of 2006 has been instituted for a decree for specific performance of the agreement dated 17.09.2002 which according to the plaintiff has been executed by the defendants and under which the consideration amount for the properties comprised under the agreement dated 17.09.2002 was fixed at Rs. 6,21,000/-. The plaintiff has pleaded that on 17.09.2002 the defendants have accepted Rs. 11,000/- as part payment and executed an agreement on a stamp paper on 17.09.2002. In paragraph no.4 of the plaint the plaintiff has asserted that on 21.12.2003 and 06.01.2004 legal notices were issued to the defendants. At this stage it needs to be recorded that Order-VII Rule 14 CPC mandates that at the time of presentation of the plaint the plaintiff shall produce the document on which his claim is founded [sub-rule 1] and if such document is not in his possession he is required to aver in the plaint, as far as practicable, in whose possession the document is [sub-rule 2]. In the plaint, the plaintiff has not pleaded that the postal receipts of the aforesaid notices dated 20.12.2003 and 06.01.2004 were not in his possession. In his application dated 11.05.2015 filed under Order-VII Rule 14(3) CPC, which was filed at the time when both parties have led their evidence in the suit, the plaintiff has pleaded that after hectic search the postal receipt of legal notice dated 20.12.2003 was found two days prior to filing of the application. This hectic search has taken more than nine years for the plaintiff to find out where the postal receipts were kept by him. This fact, however, is besides the issue. The point is, in paragraph no.4 of the plaint the plaintiff has asserted that the defendants deliberately did not receive the legal notices. This stand the plaintiff can take only after receipt of the refusal acknowledgement. Before that, the plaintiff would not come to know that the defendants have deliberately refused to accept the legal notices, and if the plaintiff has produced the refusal acknowledgement the postal receipt of the legal notices dated 20.12.2003 becomes irrelevant. Powers under Order-VII Rule 14(3) CPC can be exercised only when the Court comes to a conclusion that the additional evidence sought to be produced by a party is necessary for adjudicating the real controversy in the suit. Apparently, on his own saying if the stand taken by the plaintiff in paragraph no.4 of the plaint is read alongwith paragraph no.4 of the application under Order-VII Rule 14(3) CPC, it becomes clear that the plaintiff has taken a false plea. Moreover, the requirement for exercise of the powers under Order-VII Rule 14(3) CPC is found missing in the case and while so, the trial Judge has rightly refused to permit the plaintiff to adduce postal receipt of the legal notices dated 20.12.200