The High Court reaffirmed that certified copies of revenue records—being public and per se admissible documents—can be placed on record at any stage of partition proceedings under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC, particularly to achieve substantial justice. The judgment upholds established procedural discretion, clarifying it as binding authority for trial courts dealing with delayed submission of essential land records.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Date of Registration | 29-10-2025 |
| Decision Date | 31-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Dismissed |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi |
| Court | High Court of Himachal Pradesh |
| Bench | Single (Bipin Chander Negi, J.) |
| Precedent Value | Binding within jurisdiction (High Court of Himachal Pradesh) |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms view of the Trial Court regarding Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC |
| Type of Law | Civil Procedure (Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC); Land/Revenue Records |
| Questions of Law | Whether certified copies of Jamabandi (latest revenue record) can be placed on record at the final stage of a partition suit under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that certified revenue records (Jamabandi) are per se admissible public documents, relevant to the suit land, and their late filing (even at final decree stage) is permissible under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC if it aids substantial justice. The trial court’s discretion in allowing such documents upon payment of costs and condonation of delay is proper and does not warrant appellate interference. No prejudice or procedural injustice was demonstrated by the petitioner. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The per se admissible nature of revenue records and their utility in imparting substantial justice justified their late admission. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The suit for partition was filed in 2016. At the final decree stage, the plaintiffs sought to file a certified copy of the Jamabandi for 2021-22. The trial court condoned the delay and allowed filing of the document, subject to costs. The petitioner challenged this order in the High Court. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts considering admissibility of late-filed public documents in civil trials |
| Follows | Established practice on Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC regarding public/revenue records |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that certified copies of Jamabandi (public revenue records) can be admitted at any stage in partition suits to enable substantial justice.
- Clarifies that late submission of such documents under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC is not barred if accompanied by condonation of delay and payment of costs.
- The trial court’s procedural discretion in admitting critical documentary evidence is unlikely to be interfered with on revision, especially absent any prejudice.
- Lawyers should not hesitate to move for inclusion of authentic, per se admissible documents (like revenue records) at late stages, citing the need for accurate adjudication.
- Cautions litigants that procedural objections alone, without demonstrated prejudice, will not overrule trial court’s allowance of essential documents.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court confirmed that the main issue was whether certified public documents (Jamabandi) could be introduced at a late stage of partition suits.
- It examined the impugned order and highlighted that the certified copy—being the latest and directly concerning the subject land—was inherently admissible as a public document.
- The court emphasised that such documents aid the court in rendering substantial justice, making their inclusion desirable even if delayed.
- The trial court’s condonation of delay and imposition of costs was found to be appropriate, balancing procedural fairness and substantive justice.
- No manifest prejudice to the petitioner was established; hence, no ground for High Court interference existed.
- The court thereby dismissed the challenge, upholding the procedural discretion exercised below.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Opposed the late filing of the certified Jamabandi under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC at the final decree stage.
- Challenged the trial court’s decision to condone the delay and allow the revenue record to be placed on record.
Respondents
- No counsel appeared; no submissions recorded.
Factual Background
The dispute was a partition suit instituted in 2016 regarding jointly owned land. At the stage of passing a preliminary decree, the plaintiffs sought to introduce a certified copy of the latest Jamabandi (2021-22) pertaining to the suit property. The trial court allowed this late filing under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC, condoning the delay and imposing costs. The petitioner (defendant) challenged this trial court order before the High Court.
Statutory Analysis
The case centered on the interpretation of Order 7 Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The court acknowledged the procedural provision empowering courts to accept documents not initially filed with the plaint, subject to sufficient cause and appropriate cost imposition. The revenue record (Jamabandi) was recognized as a per se admissible public document relevant to the issues in partition proceedings.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations or guidelines were noted in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing law regarding admission of public documents under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC affirmed.