Production Of Documents That Inadvertently Remained With Counsel Can’t Be Sought Under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that production of documents that inadvertently remained in the brief of the Counsel cannot be sought invoking the provisions of Order 7, Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The Court was considering a Petition against an order whereby an Application filed by the Petitioner under Order VII, Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed.
The single bench of Justice Ajay Mohan Goel observed, “……Learned Counsel for the petitioner also could not dispute that the only reason given in the application was that earlier the documents could not be placed on record as they inadvertently remained in the brief of the learned Counsel. This Court is of the considered view that these pleas are no reasons to invoke the provisions of Order 7, Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure. These provisions have been provided in the Statute to advance the cause of justice and not to throttle the wheel of justice as apparently is the intent of the petitioner. Though the procedure is handmaid of justice, but then, the procedure cannot be misused by a party to delay the adjudication of the case or to fill up the lacunae in the case.”
The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Dheeraj K. Vashisht while the Respondent was represented by Advocate Desh Raj Thakur.
Facts of the Case
Counsel for the Petitioner had submitted that in light of the averments made in the Application and in the light of the documents which the Petitioner intended to place on record, the rejection of the Application is not sustainable in the eyes of law as it has caused great prejudice to the Petitioner and this extremely important aspect of the matter has been ignored by the Court.
On the other hand, Counsel for Respondent No. 2 submitted that after availing 5-7 opportunities to argue the matter, said application was filed by the Petitioner just to stall the proceedings and the order clearly demonstrated that reasons were spelled out in the order by the Court as to why the Application was being dismissed.
Reasoning By Court
The Court, at the outset, observed that it is not in dispute that the Application was filed after about five opportunities were granted to the parties to argue the case and the Counsel for the Petitioner otherwise also could not demonstrate that the findings returned by the Court that it was not the case of the Petitioner that Parivar Register was not in existence at the time of filing of the Suit which was filed as far back as in the year 2012, were perverse findings.
Ruling that Order 7, Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be invoked to seek production of documents that inadvertently remained in the brief of the Counsel, the Court stresses that the provisions have been provided in the Statute to advance the cause of justice and not to throttle the wheel of justice as apparently is the intent of the Petitioner.
“Though the procedure is handmaid of justice, but then, the procedure cannot be misused by a party to delay the adjudication of the case or to fill up the lacunae in the case”, it observed.
The Petition was accordingly dismissed.
Cause Title: Sh. Mukhtyar Singh vs. Gyan Singh and others
Appearances:
Petitioner– Advocate Dheeraj K. Vashisht, Advocate Shrutika Chauhan
Respondent– Advocate Desh Raj Thakur,