Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/695/2007 of RAMENDRA SINGH Vs CVIL JUDGE J.D. AND ORS. on 29 December 2011
of 2007 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Mr. V.D. Bisen, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Brief Holder for the State. Mr. M.C. Pande, Advocate for the respondent No. 2. The petitioner is the plaintiff and had filed a suit for a declaration that the order of the District Magistrate
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
WPMS No. 695 of 2007
Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J.
Mr. V.D. Bisen, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Brief Holder for the State.
Mr. M.C. Pande, Advocate for the respondent No. 2.
The petitioner is the plaintiff and had filed a suit for a declaration that the order of the District Magistrate granting free hold right to the defendant should be declared void. It transpires that the plaintiff as well as the defendant made an application to the District Magistrate for giving them free hold right. The District Magistrate granted free hold right to the defendant on the basis of the agreement of 1970. During the pendency of the proceedings, the plaintiff applied for information under the Right to Information Act and, through this process, got in possession the agreement of 1970 and, on this basis, moved an application purported to have been u/s 151 C.P.C. praying that the agreement may be brought on record. The said application was rejected by the trial court, against which, the present writ petition has been filed.
After the 2002 amendment, no document can be brought on record after the filing of the plaint. The petitioner is the plaintiff and all documents are required to be produced under Order 7 Rule 14 of the C.P.C. Sub-clause (2) of Order 7 Rule 14 contemplates that the document which was not so produced or entered in the list of documents can be produced only with the leave of the Court. In the light of this provision, liberty is given to the plaintiff to file additional documents but such liberty is subject to the leave of the court.
In the present case, the court finds that the agreement of 1970 was not in possession of the plaintiff and, therefore, he could not produce such agreement. But now having got hold of the said agreement, the same was being brought on record. In the opinion of the Court, the agreement would have a bearing on the case since the order of the District Magistrate revolves upon this agreement and, consequently, the Court below should have allowed the application and should have allowed the agreement to be brought on record.
In the light of the aforesaid, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The application of the petitioner seeking relief to bring certain document on record is also allowed.
Certified copy of the order shall be sent by the Registry to the court below within ten days from today for necessary information and action.
(Tarun Agarwala, J.)