1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.3339 OF 2022 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: K.BASAVARAJU S/O KRISHNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/O: RAVANI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 430. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. VINAY D. HOSMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: HIDAYATHULLA SHARIFF S/O LATE M.A.SATTAR, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O: 1ST CROSS, MUSLIM BLOCK MALAVALLI TOWN, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 430. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. R.RANGASWAMY, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1908, PRAYING TO A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING ORDER VIDE ANNEXURE-F PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT MADDUR IN O.S.NO.07/2011 DATED 02.02.2022 ON I.A. UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 14(3) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC AND ETC. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 01.08.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: 2 CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO CAV ORDER Plaintiff is before this Court in this writ petition, assailing the legality and correctness of the order dated 02.02.2022 passed in O.S.No.07/2011 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Maddur (for short, 'the trial Court'). 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their ranks before the trial Court. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 4. Brief facts of the case are as follows: The plaintiff who is the owner in possession of Schedule A, B, and C properties, filed O.S.No.55/2005 before the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) Malavalli, for declaration and permanent injunction against defendant restraining him from interfering with the lawful enjoyment of suit schedule properties. However, the case was transferred to Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) for the want of pecuniary jurisdiction and the same was decreed by Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) by Order dated 06.02.2006. The decree became final. However, 3 when the plaintiff had gone to other city for his daughter’s medical treatment, the defendant by taking advantage, has put up 02 shops and 12 stone pillars in the ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule properties. Hence petitioner filed the suit O.S.No.07/2011 for mandatory injunction to demolish the structure and remove pillars. 5. As the defendant had filed written statement, plaintiff was constrained to file an application under Order VII Rule 14(3) read with Section 151 to rebut the same. The trial court, after hearing both the sides, dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner/plaintiff approached this court. 6. The counsel for the petitioner would contend that the trail Court failed to apply sub-rule (3) of Rule 14 of Order VII in its strict sense. It was also contended that the application was filed to rebut the evidence and documents produced by the defendant. 7. It was further contended that granting of leave is purely procedural by relying upon the judgment of Bombay High Court in Mohan Raj vs Keval Chand (AIR 2007 Bombay 69), and judgment of Himachal Pradesh High Court in Balwant Kaur vs 4 Kailash Behle, (AIR 2003 HP 48), it was contended that document sought to rebut cannot be refused and therefore, the trail court ought to have allowed the application. The other contention that was raised was that the impugned order is non- speaking order and therefore, it is illegal and unsustainable in law. 8. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondent would contend that no valid grounds had been made out to file the application and it was further contended that the petitioner had not satisfied the ingredients of Order VII Rule 14(3) of CPC and for a period of 14 years, plaintiff has not taken any steps to produce the alleged documents. Hence, at the belated stage, the application cannot be allowed. In fact, during the course of oral evidence, he has not at all whispered anything about the documents mentioned in the alleged documents. 9. It was also contended that the application was filed after the completion of evidence and no application was filed to recall PW.1 and reopen the plaintiff’s evidence and therefore, application is liable to be dismissed. 10. Heard the both counsel, perused the material placed before this Court. It is observed that the petitioner filed the 5 application under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) read with section 151 of CPC. The provision reads as follows : “(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.” 11. While dealing with the provision, it is observed that the petitioner has to satisfy the following points for considering the application filed under Order 7 Rule 14 (3), those are: a) Relevancy of the documents can be taken on record, b) Admissibility of the documents, c) Sufficient/Reasonable cause for the Delay is relevant for consideration. 12. In the present case the petitioner failed to satisfy the above points for considering his application under Order & Rule 14(3). So, in view of the same, the petitioner failed to explain the relevancy and admissibility of the documents which are filed by him and the delay of 14 years also not explained. Further, this Court relied on the following judgments: 6 i. Hyatu Nisa v. Vikas Bhatia reported in 2012 SCC OnLine MP 10029, wherein it was held as under, “ The provision of Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC., is very clear on this question when there is no sufficient cause is made out on the record for not producing the documents inspite having knowledge and custody of the same on earlier stage, then such documents could not be taken on record at later stage.” ii. Ashok Choudhary v. Gwalior Dairy Ltd., reported in 2017 SCC OnLine MP 1955 : (2018) 2 MP LJ 301 at page 304, wherein it was held as follows: 8. 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 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 7 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. iii. Bhaiyalal v. Ramswaroop, reported in 2013 SCC OnLine MP 3821, wherein it was held as follows: “ 4. …the provision of Rule 14 of Order 7 of the Code is not a hollow formality. 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 along with 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. 13. In view of the above, no fault can be found in the findings of the trial Court 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. However, this Court is of the view that no illegality has been committed by the Court below in dismissing the application as the same was filed after lapse of fourteen (14) years and no sufficient reason was assigned. However, petitioner is at liberty to 8 file a fresh application assigning sufficient reasons for the delay in filing the petition, within a period of 15 days from the date of the receipt of copy of this order. Thereafter, the Court below after giving an opportunity of hearing to the respondent, shall decide the same by imposing cost for the inordinate delay, the dispute between the parties shall be considered by the trial Court and appropriate orders shall be passed within a period of 30 days from the date of filing of the application, in accordance with law. It is made clear that the petitioner has to file fresh application within the stipulated time, failing which, this order would not enure to the benefit of the petitioner. 14. With the aforesaid observations petition stands disposed of. Pending I.As, if any, shall stand disposed of. Sd/- (DR. K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE BNV Ct-adp