Anustha Builders and Colonizers Pvt. Ltd. vs Smt. P. Laxmi Kanthamma and Another

Satish K. Agnihotri, J.—The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 12.09.2008 (Annexure P/1) passed by 9th Additional District Judge (Fast Tract Court), Durg, in Civil Suit No. 11 A/2007 (Anustha Builders Vs. Smt. P. Laxmi Kanthamma and another), whereby the application filed under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, "CPC") for production of documents by the plaintiff was rejected.

The brief facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner are, that the petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit on 18.11.2005 (Annexure P/2) for specific performance and permanent injunction against the defendants/respondents. Therefore, the petitioner/plaintiff made an application on 09.09.2008 (Annexure P/3) under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of the CPC to produce certain documents on the ground that the same were not available at the time of filing of the plaint and the said documents are necessary and useful for proper adjudication of the dispute involved in the suit. Learned First Additional District Judge (FTC), Durg, held that the plaintiff/petitioner has not mentioned about Minutes of the Managing Committee and earlier dates i.e., 15.04.2005, 19.04.2005, 02.05.2005, 09.05.2005, 05.09.2005, 16.09.2005, 05.11.2005,10.11.2005 and 16.11.2005. The plaintiff/petitioner produced as many as 52 documents earlier. Why the petitioner/plaintiff failed to produce these documents, which were sought to be produced by this application, is not clear. The share allotment documents, according to the petitioner/plaintiff, were filed with the Registrar of Companies 2 1/2 -3 years earlier. According to Section 75(1) of The Companies Act, 1956 (for short, "the Act 1956"), the requisite time for filing of the share allotments with the Registrar of Companies is thirty days. The petitioner/plaintiff has not explained as to why the share allotment documents were not produced within a period of thirty days. Thus, the explanation of the petitioner/plaintiff that the plaintiff/petitioner has come to know recently seems to be unfounded. Secondly, this High Court has granted six months time to complete the hearing and as such, the application dated 09.09.2008 filed under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of the CPC, was rejected.

Shri Rajeev Shrivastava with Ms. Monalisa Chatterjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that finding of the trial Court that the acceptance of the documents would create delay in the trial, is not sustainable in law. The document, which were sought to be produced before the authorities, could have been accepted at any time as the said documents were necessary for proper adjudication of the dispute. The trial Court ignored the principle completely without assigning reasons that the trial Court should secure fair trial and administration of justice.

Per contra, Shri K. Sharma learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 would submit that the petitioner/plaintiff has not made out any ground for accepting the documents after a period of three years from filing of the case. The petitioner/plaintiff has delayed even filing of the documents with the Registrar of Companies. Therefore, this Court may not permit the petitioner to take advantage of production of those documents which has caused delay at every stage. This Court has granted six months time to dispose of the civil suit and as such the trial Court was bound to reject the application in order to comply with the order of this Court to complete the trial within a period of six months.

I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto.

The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 that since six months time was granted by this Court, which was mandatory, no documents could have been accepted, is misplaced and misconceived. The first and foremost requirement of the trial is fair administration of justice. The learned Judge, ought to have considered the relevance of the said documents and if it was necessary for proper adjudication, the same ought to have been permitted. It appears that the learned trial Judge has not recorded any reasons for rejecting the application filed under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of the CPC, by the petitioner/plaintiff. Whether there was delay in filing of the share allotment documents with the Registrar of Companies or not, that should not be a consideration for rejection of the application. The trial Court failed to consider the facts independently and even if there was a direction by this Court, the relevant documents cannot be ignored which may lead to maladministration of justice. The parties ought to have sought extension of time by this Court.

Learned single Judge of the Calcutta High Court in the matter of Kejriwal Enterprises Vs. General Manager, Ordnance Factory and Others, was of the view that "the documents, which have not been presented along with the plaint and also have not been entered in the list that has been added or annexed to the plaint as per the provisions of Order 7 Rule 14 sub-rule (1) of the Code could still be tendered in evidence with the leave of the Court which the Court may grant in exercise of jurisdiction under sub-rule (3) of Rule 14 of Order 7 of the Code as amended by Amendment Act 22 of 2002." The similar view was expressed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Mahavir Prasad Jain Vs. Shambhoo Kuchabandiya, MPWN 2005 (1) 177.

I am in respectful agreement with the views taken by the learned single Judge of the Calcutta High Court and the learned single Judge of the High Court of M.P., at Jabalpur. The application filed under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of the CPC ought not to have been rejected on a simple ground that the same was not produced earlier or the matter is directed to be decided expeditiously. Therefore, the above documents should be allowed to be taken on record. In the facts of the case, the learned trial Court has not appreciated the spirit of the provisions of the Order 7 Rule 14(3) in its proper perspective. Thus, the application filed on 09.09.2008 filed under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) of the CPC by the petitioner/plaintiff deserves to be allowed.

In view of the foregoing and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the petition is accordingly allowed and the order dated 12.09.2008 (Annexure P/1) passed by 9th Additional District Judge (FTC), Durg, is set aside. The trial Court after taking the documents produced by the plaintiff will proceed with the matter and decide the case as expeditiously as possible as directed by this Court earlier.