AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution takes exception to the order dated 04-09-2014 whereby the application preferred by
the respondent No.1 under Order 7 Rule 14 of the CPC was allowed by the Court below.
The grievance of the petitioner is that actual genuine document i.e. ""discharge voucher"" is Annexure P/1 and this document was signed by the
plaintiff. The plaintiff has not pleaded anything about the document, which was produced alongwith the application filed under Order 7 Rule 14 of
CPC. The Court below has erred in allowing the said application.
Per contra, Smt. Arora, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 supported the impugned order and contended that in the affidavit filed under
Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC, the plaintiff has pleaded that the amount was received under protest. She further submits that there is no illegality, which
warrants interference by this Court. In support of said contention, she placed reliance on 2017 (3) MPLJ 717 (SC)( Chakreshwari Construction
Pvt. Ltd. vs. Manohar Lal).
No other point is pressed by the parties.
I have heard the parties at length and perused the record.
No other point is pressed by counsel for the petitioner.
This is trite law that interference under Article 227 of the Constitution can be made on limited grounds. If order suffers from any jurisdictional
error, manifest procedural impropriety or palpable perversity, interference can be made. Merely because order is a wrong order, interference
cannot be made and another view is possible is also not a ground for interference. Interference cannot be made on mere asking or on a drop of
hat. The Supreme Court opined that High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution should not act as a ""bull in the
China shop"" and should interfere only when necessary ingredients for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution are available. In the present
case, the order passed by Court below dated 04-09-2014 cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. The Court below has taken care of objection
of present petitioner and opined that at this stage only document is taken on record and genuineness of this document will be subject matter of
evidence. Thus, the apprehension of petitioner is without any justification. It will be open to the petitioner to raise all objections regarding
admissibility of that document at appropriate stage before the Court below.
In the case of Manohar Lal (supra), the Apex Court held that law permits the parties to file additional evidence at any stage of the trial as per
Order 7 Rule 14 (3) of the CPC. In this view of the matter, I find no reason or ingredient on which interference can be made. Accordingly,
interference is declined.
With the aforesaid observations, this petition is dismissed. No cost.