1 2025:CGHC:29279 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 579 of 2025 1 - Ghasnin Bai Wd/o Janki Das Aged About 65 Years D/o Dujmat Bai @ Dujmati, R/o Village- Bademudpar, Ward No. 15, Tehsil - Kharsia, Distt.- Raigarh (C.G.) 2 - Teejmat Bai Wd/o Padumdas Mahant Aged About 60 Years D/o Dujmat Bai, R/o Village- Navapara Bhatapara, Tehsil - Kharsia, Distt.- Raigarh (C.G.) 3 - Lakshmin Bai Wd/o Amarudas Mahant Aged About 55 Years D/o Dujmat Bai, R/o Village- Singhansara, Tehsil - Kharsia, Distt.- Raigarh (C.G.) 4 - Kheekbai W/o Chandandas Aged About 47 Years D/o Dayaldas And Narbadiya Bai, R/o Village- Nagarda, PS Baradwar, Tehsil - Sakti, Distt.- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 5 - Sukhdas Mahant S/o Late Dayaldas And Narbadiya Bai Aged About 40 Years R/o Village- Amapali, Post- Jajang, Tehsil - Sakti, Distt.- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) 6 - Bodhandas S/o Late Dayaldas And Narbadiya Bai Aged About 36 Years R/o Village- Amapali, Post- Jajang, Tehsil - Sakti, Distt.- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Petitioners/Plaintiffs Versus 1 - Kuteli Bai D/o Sindadhudas Aged About 60 Years Wd/o Bhurulal Panika, R/o Banjari, Distt.- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 2 - Ritesh Kumar Agarwal S/o Vijay Kumar Agarwal Aged About 39 Years R/o Ward No. 7, Hatri Ward Sakti, Tehsil - Sakti, Distt.- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Collector, Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Respondents/defendants For Petitioners/Plaintiffs : Mr. Ishwar Jaiswal, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, Panel Lawyer Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2025.07.04 10:58:59 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 01/07/2025 1. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- 10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records of the court below with respect to Civil Suit No. 5- A/2021 pending before the Civil Judge Class-II/Junior Division, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 08.05.2025 (Annexure P-1) and allow the application U/o 7 R 14 of CPC for placing additional documents on record preferred by petitioners/plaintiffs. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deems fit and appropriate. 2. Mr. Ishwar Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs/petitioners would submit that the petitioners filed a suit to declare the sale deed dated 23.10.2020 null and void. He would further submit that the petitioners filed various documents in support of their plaint to prove their case. He would contend that a summons was issued to the defendants and a written statement was filed by defendants No. 1 and 2. He would also submit that the learned trial Court framed issues and the plaintiffs filed their affidavits under Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC. Thereafter, the defendants filed their affidavits under Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC wherein the petitioners observed new pleadings and facts, therefore, they moved an application under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) of CPC for the production of documents on 10.10.2024. He would further contend that the application was rejected by the learned trial Court vide order dated 08.05.2025. He would also contend that the additional documents are relevant and necessary for the just adjudication of the case. He would argue that the defendants filed 3 documents along with an application under Order 8 Rule 1A of CPC and that application has not been decided yet. He would further argue that if the application moved under 7 Rule 14 (3) of CPC is not allowed, the plaintiffs would not get proper the opportunity to cross-examine the defendants’ witnesses. He would pray to set aside the order passed by the learned trial Court whereby the application moved under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) of CPC was rejected. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Dashrath Prajapati, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for respondent No.3 would support the order passed by the learned trial Court. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 5. The plaintiffs filed a suit to declare the sale deed dated 23.10.2020 null and void. After the examination of the plaintiffs’ witnesses, the defendants filed their evidence on the affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC. The petitioners moved an application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of CPC on 10.10.2024. 6. A bare perusal of the application would show that the petitioners/plaintiffs have not pleaded any specific grounds regarding the relevancy of the documents. The plaintiffs pleaded that the documents were necessary to rebut the statement made by one Kuteli Bai in her affidavit filed under Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC. 7. This Court while dealing with the provisions of Order 7 Rule 14 (3) of CPC in WP(227) No. 62 of 2025 & connected case, parties being A.C.M. Enterprises Through Harshdeep Singh Juneja Vs. Prakash Chand Baid & Others has held that the provisions are not a hollow formality. It is further held that while considering an application moved 4 under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC, the Court should consider the stage of the trial, exceptional circumstances indicated in the application and the relevancy of documents. Relevant Paras – 20 and 21 are reproduced herein below which have been relied on by the learned trial Court:- “20. While considering an application moved under Order 7 Rule 14 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. 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. 21. Taking into consideration the law laid down by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Ashok Choudhary (supra) and 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.” 8. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioners could not make out exceptional circumstances and further failed to throw light on the relevancy of the documents, in my opinion, the learned trial Court has rightly rejected the application. 9. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti