2025:JHHC:24977 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C. M. P. No.365 of 2023 1.Sri Niwas Chaturbedi, 2.Abhay Kumar Choubey 3.Debi Charan Chaturbedi All sons of Late Satya Narayan Choubey, R/o Village- Sahubahair, PO- Sahu Bahiar, PS- Topchanchi, District- Dhanbad. .... .. ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1. Balwant Kumar Choubey 2. Bishwajit Kumar Choubey Both sons of Late Gangadhar Choubey 3A.Manorma Devi (Widow of Late Bhrigunandan Choubey) 3B.Ujwal Choubey, S/o Late Bhrigunandan Choubey 3C.Somnath Choubey, S/o Late Bhrigunandan Choubey 3D.Rekha Devi, D/o Late Bhrigunandan Choubey 3E.Seema Devi, D/o Late Bhrigunandan Choubey 3F.Babita Devi, D/o Late Bhrigunandan Choubey 3G.Meena Devi, D/o Late Bhrigunandan Choubey 4. Sudama Prasad Choubey, S/o Late Dwarika Prasad Choubey, All are residents of Village- Sahubahair, PO- Sahu Bahiar, PS- Topchanchi, District- Dhanbad .. ... ...Opp. Party(s) ........... CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY ......... For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. K. Sharma, Advocate Mr. R. C. Sahu, Advocate For the O. P(s). 1, 2 & 4 : Mr. Sanjay Prasad, Advocate …... 06/ 21.08.2025. Earlier notices were issued to the substituted legal heirs i.e. 3A to 3G and the same have been validly served. 1. The instant CMP has been filed for setting aside the order dated 18.08.2022 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Dhanbad, in O.S. No.313 of 2020 whereby and whereunder, the petition dated 07.07.2018 under Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC for granting leave to file documents has been rejected. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the plaintiff/petitioners that they are aggrieved by the order for not granting leave to permit the agreement dated 18.07.2005 to be filed and adduce into evidence. 3. It is further submitted that there is specific reference to this document in Para-7 of the plaint and it has only been rejected on the ground that it was unregistered and it was argued by the learned counsel for the defendants that it was forged and fabricated document. 2025:JHHC:24977 2 4. It is argued that the proof of document and its evidentiary value which is to be considered after the document is brought on record, but it cannot be a ground to throw out the said document, reference is also found in the plaint. Reliance is placed on 2021 (13) SCC 71 which provides that rigour of establishing reasonable cause in non- disclosure along with plaint may not arise in case where additional documents sought to be produced /relied upon are discovered subsequent to filing of plaint. 5. Learned counsel for the defendants/ Opp. Parties has opposed the petition. It is submitted that it was filed at the belated stage and it was an unregistered document, therefore, leave to file document has rightly not been granted. 6. Seeking leave of the Court for filing of documents by the plaintiffs which have not been filed earlier, is an essential prerequisite. Where the circumstances do not reflect bona fide on the part of the plaintiff, the permission to produce document can be refused. However, a requirement of filing of the documents with the plaint is directory and not mandatory in nature. When a valuable piece of evidence is produced, as in the present case and there is reference to it in the plaint, then shutting off such evidence may cause miscarriage of substantive justice. In the present Case production of the said document is not likely to entail for the delay. In somewhat similar case where there was reference to the document, it was permitted to be adduced at a later stage Marwari Relief Society v. Amulya Kumar Singh, (2019) 15 SCC 383 : 9. Considering the averments made in the plaint, in our view the learned Single Judge was not right in observing that there are no averments made in the plaint in respect of the documents sought to be produced through the said applications. As pointed out earlier, there is clear reference to the documents viz. agreement dated 4-8- 1982 and the notice issued by the appellant-plaintiff on 19-8-1987 to the respondent for payment of arrears and calling upon him for vacating the quarters. Though the cause-title of the plaint does not state that the appellant, Marwari Relief Society is represented through Ramnandan Prasad, however, the verification of the plaint clear states that Ramnandan Prasad is a “constituted agent and attorney of the plaintiff” which in our considered view is sufficient to hold that the plaint has been filed by the power-of-attorney holder who is a duly “constituted agent”. The learned Single Judge fell in error in not keeping in view the averments made in the plaint and due verification of the plaint. 2025:JHHC:24977 3 7. Under the circumstance, the impugned order is set aside and the instant CMP stands allowed. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sandeep/-