FALIT CHATURVEDI v. SMT. RAMKUMARI CHATURVEDI @ SONIYA
WP227/1203/2025 · 2025-11-20
Shri Sachin Singh Rajput
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 47435 (CHH) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 47435 (CHH) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
1
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 1203 of 2025 1 - Falit Chaturvedi S/o Late Shri Gopiram Chaturvedi Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Lalakampa, Post Office - Khairwar, Tahsil And District - Mungeli Chhattisgarh Mo. No. 7723044977
... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Smt. Ramkumari Chaturvedi @ Soniya W/o Falit Chaturvedi Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Lalakampa, Post Office - Khairwar, Tahsil And District - Mungeli Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate
Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput
Order on Board 21/11/2025 Heard on admission.
2. Challenge in this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to an order dated 10.11.2025 by which the application filed by the petitioner / plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC was rejected by the learned Family Court Mungeli, District Mungeli, CG and denying the petitioner / plaintiff to file certain documents.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application was rejected only on the two ground. Firstly, that details of the documents was
2 not pleaded in the plaint. Secondly, the second ground is that the parties have closed their evidence. He further submits that under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC, there is no limitation that documents cannot be filed after closing of the evidence and the documents which the petitioner wanted to file after came into existence after the plaint is filed.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records.
5. Perusal of the impugned order it appears that the case is at the advance stage and the learned Family Court has also considered the submission made by the petitioner that it is belatedly file and after closing of the evidence and it has not been pleaded. This finding does not appear to be perverse or contrary to the evidence warranting interference by this Court in exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India.
6. Accordingly, this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/-
(Sachin Singh Rajput)
Judge Pawan