Smt Kamla Yadav vs Shivcharan Singh Yadav

Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26873
1 MP-609-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH
th
ON THE 8 OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
MISC. PETITION No. 609 of 2026
SMT KAMLA YADAV
Versus
SHIVCHARAN SINGH YADAV AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Naval Kumar Gupta- learned Senior Counsel assisted by
Shri Shatru Daman Singh Bhadouria- Counsel for petitioner- plaintiff.
Shri Prakash Chandra Chandil & Shri Suvinay Gupta- leaned
Counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3- defendants.
ORDER
With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is
finally heard.
2. The present miscellaneous petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India challenges the order dated 21.01..2026 passed by
Third Civil Judge, Junior Division, Gwalior in Regular Civil Suit
No.668-A of 2017, whereby the application preferred by respondents
No.1 to 3-defendants under Order 8 Rule 1(3) read with Section 151 of
CPC for taking on record the copy of the agreement dated 24.09.2007
has been allowed.
3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 9/8/2026
7:27:26 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26873
2 MP-609-2026
that the petitioner- plaintiff had instituted a suit for declaration and

permanent injunction in respect of the suit land and the declaration that
the plaintiff is the sole owner and the order dated 03.06.2000 passed by
the Assistant Settlement Officer is null and void and effective against
her. The respondents- defendants filed their written statements disputing
the claim of the plaintiff. After closure of the evidence of plaintiff,
respondents No.1 to 3/defendants moved an application under Order 8
Rule 1(3) read with Section 151 of CPC for taking on record the copy of
the agreement dated 24.09.2007 on the ground that the said document
indicates that the petitioner-plaintiff as well as respondents-defendants
No. 1 to 3 have executed the document by which, the land was jointly
given to one Ramnarayan Prajapati in the month of September, 2007 for
manufacturing bricks. The petitioner filed her reply disputing the
averments in the application. However, the learned Trial Court, without
properly appreciating the object and purport of Order 8 Rule 1-A, sub-
rule (1), (2), (3) of CPC, illegally allowed the questioned application by
order dated 21.01.2026 impugned in the petition.
3. It is argued by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioner that the document which is now sought to be brought on
record after closure of the plaintiff's evidence has no corresponding
pleadings in the written statement. Without there being any pleadings,
particularly when a question of fact is sought to be brought on record by
way of the questioned application, in the absence of any pleadings in the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 9/8/2026
7:27:26 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26873
3 MP-609-2026
written statement, the same could not be permitted to be brought on

record. In fact, by the questioned application, the respondents are trying
to assail the question of fact, thereby taking the petitioner by surprise,
and taking on record the aforesaid document, may result in prejudice to
the plaintiff's evidence. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioner places reliance upon an order passed by the High Court of
Madras in the case of K. Gunasekaran vs. R. Ranganathan, 2018 SCC
OnLine Mad 2469, to contend that in absence of any defence pleaded in
the written statement, the document cannot be taken on record.
4. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for respondents
No. 1 to 3, by supporting the order impugned in the petition, submits that
it is the specific stand pleaded by the respondents/defendants in their
written statements that the suit property is a joint property. Though it
was purchased by their father in the name of the plaintiff, but throughout
the property has remained a joint property. Learned Counsel appearing
for respondents No.1 to 3 has taken this Court to the averments in paras
2, 3 and 7 of the written statement. He submits that it is the specific
defence of the defendants that the suit property is a joint property and the
document which is sought to be brought on record by way of questioned
application is evidence in support of the pleadings already made in the
written statement. By referring to the order under Order 6 Rule 2 of
CPC, it is argued by learned Counsel appearing for respondents No.1 to
3 that the document sought to be placed on record by way of questioned
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 9/8/2026
7:27:26 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26873
4 MP-609-2026
application is evidence, which is not required to be pleaded in terms of

Order 6 Rule 2 of CPC. To buttress such submission, he places reliance
upon the order passed by the Apex Court in the case of Marietta D' Silva
Vs. Rudolf Clothan Lacerda and Others, arising out of SLP (C) No.
31012 of 2025, decided on 15th May, 2026, with reference to Para 32,
wherein the Apex Court has drawn a distinction between ''pleading and
proof''. He submits that the discretionary jurisdiction has been rightly
exercised by the Court below in allowing the application preferred by
respondents No.1 to 3/defendants. The order impugned in the petition
calls for no interference.
5. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The Apex Court in the case of Sugandhi (dead) by Lrs. & Anr.
vs. P. Rajkumar, Civil Appeal No.3427/2020 decided on
13.10.2020 while considering the object and purport of Order 8 Rule 1-
A, sub-rule (1), (2), (3) of CPC has held that an application seeking to
place the document on record, is to be considered liberally. The relevant
paragraphs read as under:-
"7. Rule 1A of Order 8 of C.P.C. provides the procedure for
production of documents by the defendant which is as under:

“1A. Duty of defendant to produce documents upon which relief
is claimed or relied upon by him.—

(1) Where the defendant bases his defence upon a document or
relies upon any document in his possession or power, in support
of his defence or claim for set-off or counterclaim, he shall enter
such document in a list, and shall produce it in Court when the
written statement is presented by him and shall, at the same time,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 9/8/2026
7:27:26 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26873
5 MP-609-2026
deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the
written statement.

(2) Where any such document is not in the possession or power
of the defendant, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose
possession or power it is.

(3) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the
defendant under this rule, but, is not so produced shall not,
without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his
behalf at the hearing of the suit.

(4) Nothing in this rule shall apply to document—
(a) produced for the crossexamination of the plaintiff’s witnesses,
or
(b) handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.”

Sub-rule (1) mandates the defendant to produce the documents in
his possession before the court and file the same along with his
written statement. He must list out the documents which are in
his possession or power as well as those which are not. In case
the defendant does not file any document or copy thereof along
with his written statement, such a document shall not be allowed
to be received in evidence on behalf of the defendant at the
hearing of the suit. However, this will not apply to a document
produced for cross examination of the plaintiff’s witnesses or
handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory. Subrule
(3) states that a document which is not produced at the time of
filing of the written statement, shall not be received in evidence
except with the leave of the court. Rule (1) of Order 13 of C.P.C.
again makes it mandatory for the parties to produce their original
documents before settlement of issues.

8. Sub- rule (3), as quoted above, provides a second opportunity to ​
the defendant to produce the documents which ought to have
been produced in the court along with the written statement, with
the leave of the court. The discretion conferred upon the court to
grant such leave is to be exercised judiciously. While there is no
straight jacket formula, this leave can be granted by the court on
a good cause being shown by the defendant.

9. It is often said that procedure is the handmaid of justice.

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 9/8/2026
7:27:26 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26873
6 MP-609-2026
Procedural and technical hurdles shall not be allowed to come in
the way of the court while doing substantial justice. If the
procedural violation does not seriously cause prejudice to the
adversary party, courts must lean towards doing substantial
justice rather than relying upon procedural and technical
violation. We should not forget the fact that litigation is nothing
but a journey towards truth which is the foundation of justice and
the court is required to take appropriate steps to thrash out the
underlying truth in every dispute. Therefore, the court should take
a lenient view when an application is made for production of the
documents under sub- rule (3).'' ​

[Emphasis supplied]
7. When the facts of the case in hand are examined, it is not disputed
between the parties that the suit is at the stage of plaintiff's evidence and the
statement of the plaintiff has been recorded. The defendants, in their
statement, have taken a specific stand that the suit property is jointly owned
by thepetitioner as well as defendants No.1 to 3. The document sought to be
brought on record by the defendants by filing the questioned application
under Order 8 Rule 1(3) read with Section 151 of CPC, in the considered
opinion of this Court, is an evidence which the defendants intend to bring on
record in support of their defence already pleaded in their written statement.
8. Shri P C.Chandil, learned Counsel appearing for respondents No.1
to 3, has rightly relied upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the
case of Marietta D' Silva (supra) to contend that Order 6 Rule 2 of Code of
Civil Procedure requires pleading of material facts and not the evidence by
which, those facts are to be proved. The argument, thus, advanced by
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the questioned
document is sought to be brought on record by the defendants without there
being any factual pleadings, is baseless and contrary to the record and is,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 9/8/2026
7:27:26 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:26873
7 MP-609-2026
therefore, rejected. When the impugned order in the petition is tested on the

anvil of the proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of
Sugandhi (Dead) by Lrs. & Anr. (supra) and in the case of Marietta D' Silva
(supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Trial Court
has rightly exercised its discretionary jurisdiction in allowing the questioned
application preferred by defendants No.1 to 3 under Order 8 Rule 1(3) read
with Section 151 of CPC, by holding that the document sought to be brought
on record by the defendants is relevant for just and proper adjudication of
dispute.
9. Thus, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court does not suffer
from any palpable or jurisdictional error warranting interference in exercise
of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
having regard to its limited scope of interference.
10. Finding no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed.
11.Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.
(AMIT SETH)
JUDGE
MKB

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MAHENDRA
BARIK
Signing time: 9/8/2026
7:27:26 PM