Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad dismissed a writ petition filed under Aricle 227 of the Indian Constitution.
In the case, a petition was filed on 01-02-2018 about some particular documents that were not submitted at the time of submission of the plaint. Further cross examination revealed the necessity of the document and hence the plaintiffs prayed for leave so that they could present those documents.
Debate arose over the fact that the grounds for holding the document as a secret were not established in the petition. Another point of contention was that the aforementioned petition was filed under the provision of Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 instead of Order 7 Rule 14 (3) of The Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908. Mr. Rajeev Sharma thus argued that the petition should allowed by the trial court without considering the facts.
The learned counsel appearing for the respondent, Mr. M Jalisur referred to the provision of Order 7 Rule 14 (3) of the CPC in defence to order dated 06-03-2018. He also submitted that the writ petition had no merit since the trial court had granted liberty to cross examine the witnesses brought forward by the plaintiff.
The High Court after considering all the legalities, referred to the provisions of Order 7 Rule 14 (3) of the CPC and deemed it fit to grant relief, considering the relevancy of the documents.
The court relied on the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court of India in P.K. Palanisamy v. N. Arumugham, (2009) 9 SCC 173 where the SC held that mentioning of the wrong provision or not mentioning that provision will not make the order invalid, if the court and/or statutory authority have the requisite jurisdiction therefore.
Thus, as per the Supervisory jurisdiction in Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Court was not mistaken in warranting any interference by the court. Therefore, the writ petition failed and Interim Order dated 10-07-2018 was vacated.
Jay Shankar Yadav v. Bhola Yadav, Civil Writ Petition No. 1568 of 2018