1 2025:CGHC:34420 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 673 of 2025 1 - Smt. Phoolbasan Nishad W/o Late Ramadhar Nishad Aged About 77 Years R/o Village Katangi Kala, Tahsil Khairagarh District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (Now District - Khairagarh- Chhuikhadan - Gandai) (Plaintiff) 2 - Kanhaiya Nishad S/o Late Shyamdin Nishad Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Katangi Kala, Tahsil Khairagarh District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (Now District - Khairagarh- Chhuikhadan - Gandai) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Smt. Lata Bai Nishad W/o Lalit Nishad Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Vikrampur Tahsil Khairagarh District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (Now District - Khairagarh- Chhuikhadan - Gandai) (Defendants ) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (Now District - Khairagarh- Chhuikhadan - Gandai) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Shri Abhishek Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent/ State : Shri Vedant Shadangi, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 21.07.2025 1. The petitioners/plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of the suit land situated at Village Katangikala, Tahsil Khairagarh inter alia on the ground that they are the legal representatives of the late Ramadhar Nishad and a forged will deed was executed in favour of respondent/ defendant No.1. The SMT NIRMALA RAO 2 defendant filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. 2. Learned trial Court framed issues, and the case was fixed for final arguments on 8.5.2025, 10.6.2025, 17.6.2025 and 23.6.2025. On 23.6.2025, the plaintiffs moved an application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of CPC wherein it was pleaded that the record of rights of the year 1968-69, Revenue Proforma F of the year 1975, and revenue records pertaining to survey Nos. 295/1 & 295/1 were not in their possession, and they obtained these documents only on 16.6.2025 and 23.6.2025. Accordingly, they prayed to allow the application for the production of documents. Learned trial Court rejected the application on the ground that it was filed at a belated stage, particularly when the matter was listed for final hearing. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the documents placed before the learned Trial Court, along with an application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of the CPC, were relevant for the adjudication of the case; therefore, the learned Court below ought to have allowed the application. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on record. 6. A perusal of the order-sheets reveals that the matter was fixed for final hearing on 8.5.2025, 10.6.2025, 17.6.2025 and 23.6.2025. The application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of CPC was moved only on 23.6.2025, i.e. at the fag-end of the trial. Further, the application does 3 not indicate the relevance of the documents, nor does it explain how the documents are necessary for the just adjudication of the case. 7. In the matter of Bhaiyalal & Others vs. Ramswaroop & Others, reported in 2013 SCC OnLine MP 3821, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has observed in paras- 4, 5 and 6 as under:- “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 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.” 8. While considering an application moved under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC, the Court should consider the stage of trial, exceptional circumstances indicated in the application and the relevance of documents. In the present case, in the 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 the just decision of the case. It is a well-settled principle of law that the 4 provisions under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of CPC are not a hollow formality, but the rule of the Court is essential. 9. Taking into consideration the law laid down by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of 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. 10. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi