-1- 2025:CGHC:18691 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 259 of 2025 Dharmendra Dwivedi S/o Jainarayan Dwivedi Aged About 41 Years R/o House No. E - 51, Guru Ghasidas Colony, New, Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus Dr. Anup Sanghvi S/o Shantilal Sanghvi Aged About 70 Years Shriram Enclave, Premshanti Villa, Near Nirvana Garden, 10, Indore, District Indore (Madhya Pradesh). ... Respondent (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Arvind Shrivastava, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 24.04.2025 1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “1] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 10.02.2025 passed by the 9th District Judge, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G) in Civil Suit Case No. 11A/2021, Dharmendra Dwivedi vs Dr. Anup Sanghvi and allow the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 07 Rule 14 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- 2] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh application under Order 16 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for calling of the witness to prove the document. 3] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, which it deems fit and proper.” 2) Brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner filed a suit against the defendant for specific performance of contract. The defendant filed their written statement and denied the plaint averments. The learned trial Court framed issues, and the plaintiff adduced evidence. After closing his evidence, the plaintiff moved an application under Order 7 Rule 14 of the CPC, seeking permission to place on record the NOC issued by Priyadarshani Sahkari Grah Nirman Samiti Maryadit and a letter issued by the Deputy Commissioner Cooperation, District Raipur, dated 22.10.2024. 3) Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the plaintiff received a document dated 11.12.2024 from Predarshini Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti Limited, Raipur. As per the registered bye-laws, rules, and acts of the institution, a seller must submit an application with buyer details and pay the prescribed monthly maintenance and NOC consent fees. Only after fulfilling these conditions, the institution issues the mandatory NOC required for registration of the sale deed. He would further submit that the plaintiff seeks to place NOC issued by the Samiti on record, as it goes to the roots of the case. He further submitted that the document was in the possession of the society and was provided to the petitioner on 22.10.2024 & immediately thereafter, the -3- petitioner moved an application under Order 7 Rule 14 of the CPC on 31.01.2025. He argued that the relevancy of the document has already been discussed in the plaint and in the application filed under Order 7 Rule 14 of the CPC. He contended that the learned trial Court committed an error of law in rejecting the application. He placed reliance on the judgment passed in this Court in the matter of Harnarayan Sharma versus Paras Vaid, decided in FA No. 145 of 2005 on 07.07.2015. 4) On the other hand, Mr. Arvind Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent, opposed the submissions made by Mr. Agrawal. He submitted that as per the provisions of Order 7 Rule 14(1) of the CPC, the plaintiff was required to file all necessary and relevant documents along with the plaint. He further submitted that according to Order 7 Rule 14(2), the plaintiff was under an obligation to disclose the name of the person in whose possession the documents were. He argued that the plaintiff cannot place the documents on record without prior permission of the Court and application was moved at a belated stage. Therefore, the learned trial Court rightly rejected it. 5) I have heard learned counsel for both parties and perused the record. 6) Order 7 Rule 14 of the CPC reads as under: Documents relied on in plaint “14. Production of document on which plaintiff sues or relies— (1) Where a plaintiff sues upon a document or relies upon a document in his possession or power in support of his claim, he shall enter such document in a list, and shall produce it in Court when the plaint is presented by him and -4- shall, at the same time, deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the plaint. (2) Where any such document is not in the possession or power of the plaintiff, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose possession or power it is. (3) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the plaintiff when the plaint is presented, or to be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint but is not produced or entered accordingly, shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit. (4) Nothing in this rule shall apply to a document produced for the cross-examination of the plaintiff’s witnesses, or handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.” 7) A bare reading of the above provision makes it clear that if a document is not in possession of the plaintiff at the time of filing the plaint, it may be placed on record at a later stage, provided that sufficient reason is given for the delay and the relevancy of the document is established. The application filed under Order 7 Rule 14 by the plaintiff clearly indicates that the document is relevant and forms the basis of the plaintiff’s case. Therefore, the relevancy aspect is in favour of the petitioner. 8) This Court, while dealing with Order 7 Rule 14 of the CPC in the matter of Harnarayan Sharma (supra), held in paragraphs 10 and 11 as under: “10. It cannot be disputed that under Order 7 Rule 14 of the Code, where a plaintiff sues upon a document in his possession or power in support of his claim, he must list and produce such document in Court when the plaint is filed. Sub-rule (3) provides that a document not produced or listed with the plaint shall not be received in evidence without leave of the Court. Sub-rule (4) provides that this rule does not apply to documents used for cross-examination or to refresh -5- the memory of witnesses. Similar provision exists under Order 13 Rule 1(3). Thus, while documents should ideally be filed with the plaint, the Court has the discretion to allow production later, based on the facts of the case. The Court’s order must be reasoned and speaking. 11. The provision under Order 7 Rule 14 of the Code is procedural and intended to assist the parties and the Court in deciding the matter in dispute. Hence, the rule must be construed liberally. Relevant and material documentary evidence cannot be ignored solely due to delay in its production, unless such delay causes real prejudice to the defendant. A document that pertains to the core issue of the suit cannot be considered prejudicial merely on account of delay, especially when the defendant has the opportunity to counter it during evidence or cross-examination.” 9) Considering law discussed above and facts of the present case, this Court is of the opinion that the learned trial Court committed an error of law in rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 14 of the CPC. Accordingly, the order dated 10.02.2025 passed by the learned IX th District Judge, Raipur, is hereby set aside. The application under Order 7 Rule 14 of the CPC moved by the petitioner is hereby allowed. 10) It is informed that the civil suit is pending before the trial Court since 2021. Therefore, the trial Court is directed to make all endeavours to conclude the suit expeditiously. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim