Full Judgment
Writ Petition No.16834/12.
9.11.2012 Shri Bramha Datt Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
He is heard on the question of admission.
The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the order dated 4.9.2012 (Annexure-P-
12) passed by the Additional District Judge Bhopal, in Regular Civil Suit No.381-A/2010, whereby his application filed under Section 30 read with Section 151 of CPC for permitting the petitioner to call and examine the witnesses mentioned in the application and the application filed under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC for taking the true copy of other sale deeds which was registered by the sub-Registrar on dated 12.7.2010, on record, have been dismissed.
Having heard the counsel, I have carefully gone through the papers placed along with the aforesaid both the applications as well as the impugned order.
It is undisputed fact in the matter that at the initial stage on the date of settlement of the issues, no list of the witnesses was filed on behalf of the petitioner under Order 16 Rule 1 of CPC.
Subsequently, in pendency of this suit, the applications under Order 16 Rule 1 of CPC for issuing the summons to examine the witnesses was filed, but the same was dismissed by the trial Court vide orders dated 28.3.2012 and 12.4.2012.
On challenging such orders by the petitioner before this Court in Writ Petition No.6591/12, on consideration by affirming such orders the same was dismissed on dated 30.4.2012 by Annexure-P-7 and accordingly, it was held that the petitioner is not entitled to call any witness through summons in the matter.
Subsequent to such dismissal, the aforesaid impugned application under Section 30 of CPC was filed with a prayer to call the sub-Registrar and some other witnesses for their examination.
On perusal of the aforesaid application Annexure-P-10, it does not appear to be covered by Section 30 of CPC which is enacted for issuing the appropriate direction to produce the documents or for admission and denial of the documents.
The same appears to be an application to call the aforesaid witnesses, therefore, in view of the earlier order of this Court, no such application could have been allowed even if the same is treated to be filed under Order 16 Rule 1 of CPC or under Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC.
So, in such premises, the approach of the trial Court dismissing the aforesaid fiRs.application could not be held to be contrary to law and procedure, hence the same does not require any interference at this stage under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
So far as the dismissal of the application under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC (Annexure-P-11) is concerned, it is apparent fact that the stated documents in such application were very well in the knowledge of the petitioner/plaintiff prior to filing the suit and inspite that, the same were not filed along with the plaint in the trial Court.
Even subsequently after filing the written statement and framing the issues when the case was listed for settlement of the issues on that day also, such documents were not submitted.
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.
So, in such premises, the approach of the trial Court in dismissing the aforesaid application Annexure-P-11, could not be termed to be contrary to law or against the propriety of any provision.
In view of the aforesaid, I have not found any illegality, infirmity or anything against the propriety of law in the impugned order.
Consequently, this petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed at the stage of motion hearing.
Certified copy as per rules.
(U.C.Maheshwari) Judge Pb