- (1.) S. P. Pandey, J. These are two second appeals under Section 331 (4) of the UPZA & LR Act preferred against the judgment and order dated 14-12-1995 passed by the learned Additional Com missioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad arising out of an order dated 23-6-1993 passed by the learned trial Court on an application dated 23-10-1992 moved on behalf of the defendants. Since the parties and facts of both the appeals are the same, both of them are being dis posed of by this common judgment and order. Second appeal No. 25
(2.) OF 1995-96/moradabad shall be the leading case. The brief and relevant facts of the case are that the plaintiff, Smt. Shahida Begum instituted a suit under Section 229-B of the UPZA and LR Act praying that she be declared Bhumidhar, in pos session of the suit land on the basis or the Will dated 25-12-1979. During the proceedings of the case, an application dated 23-10-1992 was moved by the defen dants to the effect that the suit is not maintainable as the Will dated 25-12-1979, the very basis of title, has not been produced before the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court by means of its order dated 23-6-1993 allowed the aforesaid application and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by this order, two first ap peals were preferred by Smt. Shahida Begum. On 14-12-1995, the learned Com missioner has upheld the aforesaid order passed by the learned trial Court and dis missed the appeals. Hence these two second appeals. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records on file. For the appellants, it was contended that the judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below are against law, facts and circumstances of the instant case and as such they are liable to be set aside that the learned trial Court has illegally dis missed the suit of the plaintiff-appellant in spite of the certified coy of the Will- deed filed by the plaintiff-appellant ; that the original Will-deed could not be filed as it has been filed in a case pending before the Board of Revenue, U. P. at Lucknow and as such the order and judgment passed by the learned lower appellate Court be set aside. In reply, the learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the plaintiff-appellant ought to have filed the Will in question in original along with the memo of the plaint and as such the judgment and order passed by the Courts below are quite legal and must be maintained.
(3.) I have carefully and closely con sidered the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the parties and have als6 gone through the relevant records on file. Order VII, Rule 14 (1), CPC reads as below: "14 (1 ). Production of document on which plaintiff sues.-Where a plaintiff sues upon a document in his possession or power, he shall produce it in Court when the plaint is presented, and shall at the same time deliver the document or a copy thereof to be filed with the plaint. " From a bare perusal of the aforemen tioned Rule 14 (1) of Order VII, CPC, it is evidently clear that the plaintiff-appellate should have produced the Will in question in original at the time of filing of the suit. But the plaintiff-appellant has miserably failed to produce the same before the learned trial Court while filing the suit. In the circumstances, the learned trial Court in pursuance of the provisions as con tained under Order VII, Rule 14 (1) of the CPC, has rightly dismissed the aforesaid suit. The learned Commissioner has also correctly dismissed the appeal and upheld the aforesaid order passed by the learned trial Court. Having closely considered the mat ter in question, I find that no illegality or material irregularity has been committed by the learned Commissioner in exercise of his jurisdiction under Section 331 (4) of the UPZA and LR Act. I entirely agree with the conclusion drawn by the learned lower appellate Court.;