ANUSTHA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PVT. LTD. Vs. SMT. P. LAXMI KANTHAMMA & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in this petition is to the order dated 12.09.2008 (Annexure P/1) passed by 9th Additional District Judge (Fast Tract Court), Durg, in Civil Suit No. 11 A/2007 (Anustha Builders Vs. Smt. P. Laxmi Kanthamma and another), whereby the application filed under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, "CPC") for production of documents by the plaintiff was rejected.

(2.) THE brief facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner are, that the petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit on 18.11.2005 (Annexure P/2) for specific performance and permanent injunction against the defendants/respondents. Therefore, the petitioner/plaintiff made an application on 09.09.2008 (Annexure P/3) under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of the CPC to produce certain documents on the ground that the same were not available at the time of filing of the plaint and the said documents are necessary and useful for proper adjudication of the dispute involved in the suit. Learned First Additional District Judge (FTC), Durg, held that the plaintiff/petitioner has not mentioned about Minutes of the Managing Committee and earlier dates i.e., 15.04.2005, 19.04.2005, 02.05.2005, 09.05.2005, 05.09.2005, 16.09.2005, 05.11.2005,10.11.2005 and 16.11.2005. The plaintiff/petitioner produced as many as 52 documents earlier. Why the petitioner/plaintiff failed to produce these documents, which were sought to be produced by this application, is not clear. The share allotment documents, according to the petitioner/plaintiff, were filed with the Registrar of Companies 2 1/2 -3 years earlier. According to Section 75(1) of The Companies Act, 1956 (for short, "the Act 1956"), the requisite time for filing of the share allotments with the Registrar of Companies is thirty days. The petitioner/plaintiff has not explained as to why the share allotment documents were not produced within a period of thirty days. Thus, the explanation of the petitioner/plaintiff that the plaintiff/petitioner has come to know recently seems to be unfounded. Secondly, this High Court has granted six months time to complete the hearing and as such, the application dated 09.09.2008 filed under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of the CPC, was rejected. Shri Rajeev Shrivastava with Ms. Monalisa Chatterjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that finding of the trial Court that the acceptance of the documents would create delay in the trial, is not sustainable in law. The document, which were sought to be produced before the authorities, could have been accepted at any time as the said documents were necessary for proper adjudication of the dispute. The trial Court ignored the principle completely without assigning reasons that the trial Court should secure fair trial and administration of justice. Per contra, Shri K. Sharma learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 would submit that the petitioner/plaintiff has not made out any ground for accepting the documents after a period of three years from filing of the case. The petitioner/plaintiff has delayed even filing of the documents with the Registrar of Companies. Therefore, this Court may not permit the petitioner to take advantage of production of those documents which has caused delay at every stage. This Court has granted six months time to dispose of the civil suit and as such the trial Court was bound to reject the application in order to comply with the order of this Court to complete the trial within a period of six months.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto.