1 2025:CGHC:45496 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 501 of 2025  Bhawani Lal S/o. Darshuram Alias Darashram Rathore Aged About 70 Years Profession- Agriculture, R/o. Portha, Ward No. 09, Tehsil And District - Sakti (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Ramesh Kumar S/o. Late Itwari Ram Rathore Aged About 55 Years Profession- Agriculture, R/o. Portha, Ward No. 09, Tehsil And District - Sakti (C.G.) 2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through- District Collector, Janjgir, At Present- Sakti, District - Janjgir Champa (C.G.) Now District - Sakti (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. M.A. Latif Rahman, Advocate For State : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 08-09-2025 1) By way of this petition, petitioner has assailed the order passed by learned Civil Judge – Junior Division, Sakti, District – Janjgir Champa (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 25-A/2022 dated 05.03.2025 whereby application under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC moved by the petitioner/ plaintiff has been rejected. 2) Facts of the present case are that petitioner/ plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of the Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.09.09 17:16:40 +0530 2 agricultural land mentioned in the plaint. Respondent No. 1/ Defendant filed written statement. Learned trial Court framed issues and plaintiff led evidence. During pendency of the suit, plaintiff moved an application under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC to submit a certified copy of Settlement No. – 246 pertaining to year 1939-40. Defendant filed reply to the said application. Thereafter, learned Trial Court vide order dated 05.03.2025 rejected the application holding that the plaintiff has not pleaded as to how and why the said document is relevant for just adjudication of the case and same is being submitted by plaintiff only with the intention of delaying the case. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned Trial Court erred in law in ignoring the document produced by the plaintiff whereas the said document is a public document and as soon it was made available to the plaintiff, it was produced before the Trial Court. He further submits that order impugned is bad in law and deserves to be set aside. 4) On the other hand, learned State counsel supports the order impugned. 5) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6) Order 7 Rule 14(3) of CPC reads as under:- “Order 7 – Plaint: Rule 14. Production of document on which plaintiff sues or relies.--(3) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the plaintiff when the plaint is presented, or to be entered 3 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.” A bare reading of this provision would make it clear that the documents upon which the plaintiff relies ought to be produced by the plaintiff along with the plaint, but if the same is not produced, it shall not be receivable in evidence without the leave of the Court. 7) A perusal of the application moved under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of CPC would make it clear that the petitioner has not stated how and why the certified copy of Settlement No. – 246 pertaining to year 1939-40 is relevant for the just adjudication of the case. Mere asking for the production of a document can not and should not be accepted by the Court. The plaintiff ought to have pleaded the relevancy of the document in the application. The learned trial Court rejected the application on the ground that the plaintiff has not pleaded relevancy of that document in his application and no affidavit was filed in support thereof. 8) In the matter of Ashok Choudhary vs. Gwalior Dairy Ltd. and others1, High Court of Madhya Pradesh while dealing with a similar issue of Order 7 Rule 14(3) of CPC in para – 8 held as under:- “As far as application under Order 7, Rule 14(3), Civil Procedure Code is concerned, same has been partially rejected in respect of those documents which was not readable namely certified copies of the statements of 1. 2017 SCC OnLine MP 1955 4 Chandrakant, Suresh, Anand and Prakash. Similarly application which was filed for mutation and certified copy of Khasra panchshala. It was always open to the petitioner to have obtained readable copies of the documents and to produce them before the trial Court. Since the plaintiff has failed to discharge this burden and this Court has already held that provisions under Order 7, Rule 14(3), Civil Procedure Code is not a hollow formality but the rule of the Court is essential, therefore, the Court was very much within its right to exercise his discretion in refusing such leave on the ground that such documents were not readable. No explanation has been given as to why legible copies could not be produced and what prevented the plaintiff from filing it earlier at the time of filing of this suit and why such documents were not mentioned in the list to be produced under the provisions of Order 7, Rule 14(2), Civil Procedure Code. Therefore, in absence of such documents being entered into in terms of the provisions contained in Order 7, Rule 14(1) or Order 7, Rule 14 (2), the Court was required to exercise its jurisdiction and discretion while granting leave. This Court is of the opinion that leave could not have been granted for admitting illegible documents and therefore that has been rightly discarded.” 9) In the matter of Bhaiyalal & Others vs. Ramswaroop & Others2, High Court of Madhya Pradesh has observed in paras – 4, 5 and 6 are reproduced herein below:- “4. It is further evident that when the application under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC was filed, the suit had reached the stage of cross-examination of plaintiff. The request was, thus, made during the progress of the trial, which falls within Clause (3) of Rule 14 of Order 7 of CPC, which provides that documents, which are not presented alongwith the plaint at the time of institution of the suit, shall not be allowed to be produced or entered in evidence without the 2. 2013 SCC OnLine MP 3821 5 leave of the Court. Thus, the provisions of Clause (3) of Rule 14 of Order 7 of CPC do not permit liberal interpretation. Thus, exceptional circumstances have to be demonstrated by the plaintiff during the progress of the suit to bring any additional documents or record, which have not been filed alongwith the plaint. 5.A perusal of the application under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC dated 31.08.2012 preferred by the plaintiff does not indicate any such exceptional circumstances except that the said documents shall assist the plaintiff to establish his case. 6.In view of the above, no jurisdictional fault can be found in the findings of the trial Court contained in the impugned order and, therefore this Court refrains itself from interfering in its limited supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.” 10) While considering an application moved under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC, the Court should consider the stage of trial, exceptional circumstances indicated in application and relevancy of documents. In the present case, an application moved under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC, the petitioner has not stated as to how and why the documents are relevant. Further the application does not indicate any exceptional circumstances except that the documents are necessary for just decision of the case and same has been moved at the stage of evidence of defendant’s witnesses. It is well settled principles of law that the provisions under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of CPC are not hollow formality but the rule of the Court is essential. 11) Taking into consideration the law laid down by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Ashok Choudhary (supra) and 6 Bhaiyalal (supra) the facts of the present cases, the reasons assigned by the learned trial Court and the stage of the trial, in the opinion of this Court, no case is made out for interference. 12) Consequently, both petitions fail and are hereby dismissed. No costs. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a