CW/1262/2026 of NAVEEN SWAROOP SAXENA S/O SHRI PREMNATH SAXENA Vs DR. MANOJ GUPTA S/O SHRI SHYAMLAL GUPTA on 28 July 2026

Order

28/07/2026

1. Petitioner is the plaintiff and is aggrieved by the order dated 29.10.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 5 (North), Kota, in Civil Suit No. 106/2021, whereby his application under Order VII Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC") was dismissed.

2. Heard learned counsel for both the parties, and perused the record.

3. It appears from the record that petitioner-plaintiff has instituted a suit for permanent injunction seeking to restrain respondent No. 1-defendant from raising construction over Plot No. 3-A-68, Mahaveer Nagar Extension Scheme, Kota, without leaving the requisite setbacks and contrary to the building plan duly approved by the Nagar Nigam, Kota.

(2 of 3) [CW-1262/2026]

4. It further appears that the suit is presently at the stage of plaintiff's evidence. At this stage petitioner moved an application under Order VII Rule 14 CPC seeking leave to place certain documents, the details whereof are contained in Annexure-6 to the present writ petition. The documents include correspondence exchanged between the Nagar Nigam, Kota and respondent No. 1, as well as petitioner's lease deed, to show the extent of the setbacks required to be maintained in respect of the plot in question. According to petitioner, these documents are material and directly relevant to the controversy involved in the suit. However, the trial Court, vide impugned order dated 29.10.2025, dismissed the application primarily on the ground of delay, and for the reason that no sufficient cause was assigned for non- production of the documents along with the plaint.

5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1-defendant has supported the impugned order and states that plaintiff was required to file all documents on which he intended to rely, along with the plaint. However his alternative submission is that in case this Court permits the documents to be taken on record, the same may be made subject to imposition of appropriate costs upon plaintiff, payable to respondent No.1-defendant, so as to compensate for the delay caused.

6. After considering the submissions and on perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the provisions of Order VII Rule 14 CPC do not impose an absolute bar against production of documents at a later stage of the proceedings. Documents which are material and relevant for adjudication of the dispute, may be permitted to be

(3 of 3) [CW-1262/2026] brought on record with the leave of the Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu v. Union of India [ (2005) 6 SCC 344]

, has held that the provisions of Order VII Rule 14 CPC are directory in nature and not mandatory.

7. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, considering the stage and the nature of the suit so also the documents sought to be produced, this Court finds that the documents are relevant to the issues involved in the suit. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, petitioner is permitted to place the documents on record, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 10,000/- to respondent No. 1-defendant.

8. Consequently, the impugned order dated 29.10.2025 is hereby set aside, and the application filed by petitioner under Order VII Rule 14 CPC stands allowed, subject to payment of the aforesaid costs. Since the suit is presently at the stage of the plaintiff's evidence, respondent No.1 shall be at liberty to rebut the documents so produced, and to lead appropriate evidence in accordance with law.

9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

10. Stay application and pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

11. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for compliance. (SUDESH BANSAL),J Sachin Sharma/ 45