AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner, plaintiff no. 1 in Title Suit No. 24 of 2000, is aggrieved of order dated 24.05.2008 by which application under Order VII Rule 14 (3)
CPC read with Section 151 CPC has been declined.
By an order dated 02.07.2008 passed in this proceeding the trial court was directed not to deliver judgment in Title Suit No. 24 of 2000.
Order VII Rule 14 CPC mandates that the plaintiff shall produce a document on which his claim is founded (sub-rule 1). Rule 14(2) to Order VII
CPC provides that if such document is not in the possession or power of the plaintiff he shall, where possible, state in whose possession or power it is.
Under Rule 14 (3) to Order VII CPC a document which ought to have been produced by the plaintiff when the plaint is presented, but not presented,
can be taken in evidence with leave of the court. Under Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) CPC a similar liberty has been granted to the defendants for
producing such evidence with leave of the court. In the plaint, the plaintiffs have referred to notice under Section 80 CPC issued to the defendant-
State of Jharkhand, still the trial judge has rejected the application under Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC on the ground that the plaintiffs' evidence was
already closed and if the notice under Section 80 CPC is taken on record it would lead to reopening of the case. It is pertinent to mention that by the
impugned order dated 24.05.2008 the trial judge has while allowed application for amendment in the plaint and also an application under Order VI Rule
16 CPC for striking-off pleadings in the plaint, it has declined to permit the plaintiffs to produce a copy of notice under Section 80 CPC in evidence. If
amendment in the plaint can be allowed at that stage in the suit, rejection of the application under Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC on the ground that it
would lead to re-opening of the case, cannot be countenanced in law.
Apparently, approach of the trial judge was erroneous. Title Suit No. 24 of 2000 was instituted for a decree for declaration of the plaintiffs' title
over the suit property and recovery of possession of the suit land to them. In the notice under Section 80 CPC the plaintiffs have pleaded that the
defendant-State of Jharkhand has no title over the suit property. Notice under Section 80 CPC in such cases is mandatory is by now well-settled and a
suit is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-compliance of mandatory requirement under Section 80 CPC and while so, notice under Section 80
CPC becomes a relevant document.
In the above facts, finding serious infirmity in the impugned order dated 24.05.2008, it is set-aside. The notice under Section 80 CPC shall be taken
on record subject to objection by the defendants, if any. The defendants shall be permitted to lead evidence in the rebuttal.
The writ petition stands allowed, in the aforesaid terms.