JANTA MAHAVIDYALAYA/JANTA MADHYAMIK VIDYALAYAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

          MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6341 of 2026

Janta Mahavidyalaya/Janta Madhyamik Vidyalaya
                                                                  .....Petitioner(s)
                                     Versus
State Of U.P. And 5 Others
                                                               .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)         : Jagat Narayan Mishra, Krishna Dutt
                                    Awasthi
Counsel for Respondent(s)         : C.S.C.

Court No. - 5
                     HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

1. Heard Sri Jagat Narayan Mishra, learned counsel for the plaintiff-
petitioner and Sri R.P. Singh, learned Standing Counsel, who appears for
State-respondents.

2. In view of the order, which is being proposed to be passed today, notices
are not being issued to the defendant-respondent nos. 2 to 6.

3. The counsel for the rival parties have made a joint statement that they do
not propose to file any further affidavits thus with the consent of the parties,
writ petition is being decided at the fresh stage.

4. The case of the plaintiff-petitioner is that the plaintiff-petitioner instituted
an Original Suit No. 312 of 2010 (Janta Mahavidyalaya v. Smt. Premshri)
before the court of Civil Judge Senior Division/ FTC, Auraiya seeking
permanent injunction restraining the defendant-respondents therein not to cut
the big trees standing inside the boundary wall and not to demolish the
boundary wall and encroach the land of the college. On the presentation of
the said suit, notices were issued, the defendants putting their appearance
and thereafter written statement came to be filed on 10.09.2010.
The plaintiff-petitioner thereafter preferred an application on 24.10.2024
being paper no. 205C and supported by an affidavit being paper no. 206C,
seeking amendment in the pleadings. The Civil Judge (Senior Division),
FTC, Auraiya rejected the amendment application on 07.02.2025 aggrieved
whereof the plaintiff-petitioner preferred a revision no. 2 of 2025 before the
District Judge, Auraiya and the said revision was decided by the Additional
District Judge-3, Auraiya vide judgement and order dated 19.07.2025
                                                             A227 No. 6341 of 2026
                                  2


upholding the order of the trial court dated 07.02.2025. Thereafter
the plaintiff-petitioner preferred a petition under Article 227 No. 9687 of
2025 questioning the order dated 07.02.2025 of the trial court and the
judgment of the appellate court dated 19.07.2025 which is pending before
this Court thereafter now the plaintiff-petitioner preferred an application
under Order VII Rule 14 of the CPC for the production of documents on
which the plaintiff-petitioner sues and relies being paper exhibit-213Ga. The
said application came to be rejected by the Civil Judge (Senior Division),
FTC, Auraiya, on 16.03.2026 against which a revision came to be preferred
which was rejected o 30.03.2026 being not maintainable.

5. Questioning the same, the writ petitioner has been filed the present writ
petition.

6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner has sought to argue that the
order passed by the trial court as well as revisional court cannot be sustained
for the simple reason that the documents which the plaintiff-petitioner
sought to rely upon and sought production while invoking the provisions
contained under Order VII Rule 14 of the CPC were of paramount
importance as they would not have cause any prejudice in case the
application was allowed. While inviting attention page 56 of the paper book,
it is contended that the said documents were goes to the root of the matter
which would be necessary for adjudication of the case and further the said
documents were not also in the possession of the plaintiff-petitioner. He
further submits that the Court has taken a cursory view that too not on the
basis of the legal sound principles. He further submits that already there is a
serious dispute between the parties and in case the said documents would
have been directed to produce then substantial justice would have done.

7. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that a dilatory tactics
has been adopted as the suit is of the year-2010 and as per the recital
contained in the order dated 16.03.2026, the stage of final arguments is since
the year 2023.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records
carefully.

9. Facts are not in issue. It is not in issue that a original suit no. 312 of 2010
for permanent injunction came to be instituted by the plaintiff-petitioner in
the said suit, an amendment application came to be preferred which was
                                                                   A227 No. 6341 of 2026
                                    3


rejected on 07.02.2025 by the trial court and the revisional court also
rejected the revision thereafter proceedings under Article 227 has been
instituted which is pending there is no stay order. Further the Court finds that
an application being 185ga to file for productions of certain documents on
record which was accepted on 01.05.2024 at the cost of Rs. 700/-.

10. The order impugned dated 16.03.2026 reads as under:

     "Suit called out. Parties present through learned Advocate. The suit is
     fixed today for her/disp. of application 213ga.

     Heard and perused.

     The petitioner has filed the application 213ga along with a list of
     documents, requesting the court to take the said/mentioned documents on
     record.

     The defendant made and objection that the petitioner is trying to delay the
     timely disposed of this suit.
     Perusal of the file shows that this suit is pending for final arguments since
     the year 2023. During this period of almost three year i.e. from fixing the
     suit for final arguments till today, the petitioner has moved multiple
     applications. The petitioner had moved application 180.. for amendment
     of petitioner which was accepted by the court on 11.10.2023 post that the
     petitioner moved an application 185ga to file certain documents on
     record. The court had accepted the said application on 01.05.2024 at the
     cost of Rs. 700/- After that the petitioner moved application 205ka to
     make certain amendments in the plaint. The court rejected the said
     application on 07.02.2025 and fixed the suit for final arguments. The
     petitioner then moved application 209ga to adju. The proceeding of this
     suit till the disposal of a writ under article 227 No. 9687 of 2025, filed by
     the petitioner before the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad. The court had
     dismissed the application on 05.02.2026.

     Now the petitioner vide application 213ga has again requested the court
     to take certain documents on record. The petitioner has no where
     mentioned and explained the sufficient cause of and as to how the said
     documents are relevant for the final and effective disposal of this suit. The
     petitioner had earlier also filed certain documents vide application
     185ga. The petitioner failed to explain as to why he did not file the said
     documents on a previous occasion.

     Looking at the acts of the petitioner fresh the fixation of this suit for final
     arguments. It is clearly evident that the petitioner is simply trying to delay
                                                                          A227 No. 6341 of 2026
                                         4

     the timely disposal of this suit. Therefore keeping in mind, the above facts,
     circumstances and the demeanor of the petitioner, the application 213ga
     is dismissed.

     This suit is of oldest category and falling of the targeted suits of action
     plan. The parties are directed to ensure their presence on each date fixed.
     No unnecessary adjournment shall be entertained. In case of absence of
     either party, the suit shall be proceeded accordingly.

     Put up on 25.03.2026 for final arguments."

11. Apart from the same, the Court finds that the application so preferred
under Order VII Rule 14 of the CPC which was marked as application
213Ga reads as under:

     "्ऺाथर्ना प्ऴ वास्ते इस ्ऺाथर्ना प्ऴ के साथ संलग्न सूची से दािखल कागजात अंगीकृत कर
     िरकाडर् पर िलये जाने के सम्बन्ध में:-

     ्शीमान् जी,

     सेवा में सिवनय िनवेदन है िक ्ऺाथर् उपरो्व वाद में वादी का उप्ऺबन्धक एवं पैरोकार मुकदमा
     है और उपरो्व वाद अिन्तम बहस में िनयत है। वादी के उप्ऺबन्धक ्षारा इस ्ऺाथर्ना प्ऴ के
     साथ संलग्न सूची से कुछ कागजात दािखल िकये जा रहे है िक जो कागजात वाद उपरो्व के
     आवश्यक एवं महत्वपूणर् दस्तावेज है िजससे मान्य न्यायालय को न्याय िनणर्यन में सहायता
     ्ऺाप्त होगी। माननीय न्यायालय ्षारा उपरो्व कागजात अंगीकृत कर िरकाडर् पर िलये जाने के
     उपरान्त वादी ्षारा उपरो्व कागजात के सम्बन्ध में कोई अितिर्व साष्य ्ऺस्तुत नहीं करना है।

     अतः ्शीमान् जी से ्ऺाथर्ना है िक इस ्ऺाथर्ना प्ऴ के साथ संलग्न सूची से दािखल कागजात को
     अंगीकृत कर िरकाडर् पर िलये जाने का आदेश पािरत करने की कृपा करें।"

12. Further Order VII Rule 14 of the CPC reads as under:

     "14. Production of document on which plaintiff sues or relies.—(1)
     Where a plaintiff sues upon a document or relies upon document in his
     possession or power in support of his claim, he shall enter such
     documents in a list, and shall produce it in Court when the plaint is
     presented by him and shall, at the same time deliver the document and a
     copy thereof, to be filed with the plaint.

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

     (3) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the plaintiff when
     the plaint is presented, or to be entered in the list to be added or annexed
                                                                                                     A227 No. 6341 of 2026
                                                                       5

                                         to the plaint but is not produced or entered accordingly, 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 produced for the cross-
                                         examination of the plaintiffs witnesses, or handed over to a witness
                                         merely to refresh his memory."

                                    13. As a matter of fact, there is nothing on record to substantiate that the said
                                    document which was sought to be produced at any relevance in the matter as
                                    the entire application is lacking the said contents. Further it is also not
                                    recited as to whose possession, the said document is there and the court
                                    below has recorded a specific finding in coming to the conclusion that a
                                    dilatory tactics has been adopted in this regard, particularly, the suit is of the
                                    year 2010 and the opportunity to file an amendment application, it is availed
                                    and the said amendment was rejected and there is no interim order operating
                                    therein.

                                    14. Accordingly, no good ground is made out for interference, the petition
                                    stands dismissed.

                                    May 6, 2026
                                    Ashu
                                                                                                   (Vikas Budhwar,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad