No inherent right to introduce delayed evidence: Rajasthan HC upholds rejection of plea to produce sale deed certified copy filed 13 years after suit
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Rajasthan Single Bench of Justice Rekha Borana dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of an application filed under Order VII Rule 14 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The application had sought to place on record a certified copy of a sale deed dated 16.12.1998. The Court upheld the trial court’s decision, stating that the plaintiffs had failed to justify a delay of over 13 years in producing the document and held that “merely for the reason that the suit is at stage of plaintiffs’ evidence, there is no inherent right available to the plaintiffs to produce a document which was in their knowledge right from the time of filing of the suit.”
The writ petition arose from an order dated 04.02.2025 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Ratangarh, District Churu, in Civil Suit No.33/2011 (CIS No.28/2015). The plaintiffs had filed an application dated 16.01.2025 under Order VII Rule 14 CPC, requesting that a certified copy of a sale deed dated 16.12.1998 executed in favour of Rajendra Gupta be taken on record. A photocopy of the same had already been annexed to the original plaint.
According to the petitioners, the land in question had originally been left open for public use by Badriprasad Sharma and vested in the local Municipal Board. The plaintiffs alleged that this land was later fraudulently sold by the defendant. The sale deed of Rajendra Gupta, whose property adjoins the disputed site, was deemed relevant by the plaintiffs to clarify the site’s position and enable proper adjudication.
The trial court, however, rejected the application, citing several reasons. Firstly, it noted that while a photocopy of the sale deed was annexed to the plaint, the document list did not contain any note indicating that the original sale deed would be summoned. Secondly, the court observed that the plaintiffs had knowledge of the sale deed since the suit was filed in 2011 but made no effort to procure a certified copy until 2024. The plaintiffs had earlier filed a separate application to summon the document from Rajendra Gupta, which was dismissed, after which they obtained the certified copy.
The trial court also found that the application had been filed more than 13 years after the plaint was submitted, with no reasonable explanation for the delay. It further recorded that the plaintiffs had filed multiple miscellaneous applications during the plaintiffs’ evidence stage but had not led any actual evidence. The court inferred that the application was intended to delay the proceedings.
In support of their application, the petitioners submitted that the photocopy had been on record from the outset and that the defendants had been aware of it. Therefore, taking the certified copy on record would not cause prejudice. Moreover, as the matter was still at the evidence stage, the defendants would have the opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiffs on the document.
The respondents opposed the writ petition, maintaining that the trial court had correctly exercised its discretion in rejecting the belated application and that the reasons recorded for the rejection were legally sound.
The Court stated: “Merely for the reason that the suit is at stage of plaintiffs’ evidence, there is no inherent right available to the plaintiffs to produce a document which was in their knowledge right from the time of filing of the suit.”
It further recorded: “Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to point out any sufficient cause for the said delay of 13 years.”
The Court noted that: “Admittedly, no steps to procure the certified copy of the sale deed in question were taken prior to the year 2024.”
With regard to procedural chronology, the Court stated: “Considering the fact that the plaintiffs were aware of the sale deed right from the date of filing the plaint i.e. 08.09.2011… yet did not choose to place the certified copy on record for a period of more than 13 years, the learned Trial Court rightly rejected the application.”
On the issue of delays and pendency, the Court noted: “The suit was filed in the year 2011 and on 24.07.2019 issues were framed in the matter. The plaintiffs had already been granted 13 opportunities to lead their evidence.”
It also noted that: “The present suit stands at Serial No.15 in the list of oldest cases for disposal.”
Based on the above observations, the Court concluded:“The learned Trial Court rightly rejected the application under Order VII Rule 14, CPC.”
The High Court held: “In view of the above observations, the order impugned being in consonance with law does not deserve any interference.”
Accordingly, it directed: “The present writ petition is hence, dismissed. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Shambhoo Singh
Case Title: LRs of Avatar Singh & Ors. v. LRs of Gajanand & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025:RJ-JD:17462
Case Number: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4707/2025
Coram: Justice Rekha Borana
[Read/Download order]
