AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.
This is plaintiff’s revision challenging an order of the court below dated 20.09.2017 rejecting the application of the revisionist under Order VII
Rule 14 CPC for moving additional evidence. In short, the court has not granted the leave to the plaintiff/revisionist to adduce evidence after a period
of almost seven years.
A suit for permanent injunction was filed by the plaintiff against his real brother who is the defendant for a property which is situated in Nainital.
The suit was filed way back in the year 2009. Issues were framed long back and now the matter was fixed for final arguments. At this stage, an
application was moved by the revisionist before the court below for seeking leave of the court to bring certain documents on the record and the ground
taken for not filing these documents earlier was that these documents were in a locker and he had lost the keys thereof and after breaking open the
locker on 14.09.2017, he recovered these documents and has immediately filed this application under Order VII Rule 14 CPC, the next day itself.
The court below has relied upon the provisions of Order VII Rule 14 CPC and has held that as far as possible all the documents have to be
presented along with the plaint itself particularly those documents which are in possession of the plaintiff and only in rare cases such documents can
be allowed to be presented later.
Undisputedly, the leave in such cases has to be given sparingly. The stage of the suit itself has an important bearing on this aspect. Admittedly, the
leave of the court for placing additional evidence was being sought at a highly belated stage. Moreover, the plea of the plaintiff that the documents on
which reliance has been placed was kept in a bank locker and he had lost the keys of that bank locker, etc. has nowhere come in the pleadings, nor
was there any FIR to this effect which may show the bona fide of the plaintiff and hence, under these circumstances, the application under Order VII
Rule 14 CPC has been rightly rejected by the Court below.
Immediately after the rejection of the aforementioned application, an application for review was filed by the revisionist under Section 114 CPC
which has also been rejected by the court below vide order dated 09.11.2017 observing, inter alia, that the grounds for the review are extremely
limited.
In view thereof, no interference is liable to be made by this Court at this stage as any interference would further delay the suit proceedings which
have already been delayed.
In view of the above observations, the civil revision stands dismissed.