ORDER Mukul Mudgal, J.
1. This is an application on behalf of the defendants under Order XIII Rule 2 CPC. The present application seeks to produce the original lease deed dated 26.8.1963 with the annexed plan which lease deed is said to be executed between M/s Urban improvement Co. Pvt. Ltd. and the defendants. This application further pleads that the original lease deed was already filled by the plaintiff and was admitted by the defendants and marked as Ex. P-7 and the plaintiff had failed to file a complete document as the copy of the site plan annexed with the lease deed was not filed. It is pleaded that these documents were not filed earlier as the plan was mixed up with the old records since the office of the defendants Corporation shifted from one place to another several times. It is also stated that the said documents was traced out only recently.
2. The above application has been opposed on behalf of the plaintiff as an abuse of the process of law. It has been pleaded that the controversy between the parties in the suit is that the suit property when let out to the defendants was a plot of land or had construction thereon. It is stated that even the lease deed has described the property as a plot of land. The plaintiff has submitted that by Notice dated 11.9.1995 under Order XII Rule 8 CPC, the counsel for the plaintiff called upon the defendants to produce the documents sought to be produced with this application alongwith other documents. In spite of service of notice, the defendants had not produced the said documents and deliberately withheld them. Consequently IA.11311/95 was filed by the plaintiff seeking directions to the defendants to discover on oath the documents mentioned in the said application which included the original Agreement dated 1.2.1961 and original Lease Deed dated 26.8.1963. On 16.11.1998 when the said application came up for hearing a statement was made on behalf of the defendants that the copies of the documents i.e., original lease agreement dated 1.2.1961 and original lease deed dated 26.8.1963 already on record were duly admitted. This was clearly recorded in the Order dated 16.11.1998 to the following effect:
"While copies of the documents of defendants at item No. 1 & 2 have already been filed by the plaintiff and admitted by the defendant, the defendant had in his reply stated that the documents mentioned at Item No. 3 & 4 in Paragraph No. 4 of the application are not in his power and possession. In my view let the defendant discover on oath by means of affidavit the documents mentioned at Sl. No. 3 & 4 and in case the same are in possession and power of defendant the same be filed in Court before the next date of hearing."
3. The other two documents were directed to be discovered on oath by the defendants. The plaintiff further submitted that he has already led the evidence of 5 witnesses including the Junior Engineer of MCD and the Managing Director of the Urban Improvement Company. It is also stated that the witnesses on behalf of the plaintiff have already deposed that there was no building on the plot of land leased out to the defendants. The plaintiff closed its evidence on 6.7.99 and on that day no witness of the defendants was present. Accordingly, the case was adjourned to 4.8.99 for defendants' evidence and as even on that date no one was present on behalf of the defendants, the case was adjourned to 1.9.99. On 1.9.99 again the matter was adjourned at the behest of the defendants to 1.10.99 granting a last opportunity to the defendants. On 1.10.99 again no witness was present on behalf of the defendants and another final opportunity was given to produce the witness on 3.11.99 subject to payment of Rs. 1,000/- as costs. Even on 3.11.1999 no witness of the defendants was present and another last and final opportunity was given to the defendants to produce the witnesses on 1.12.1999 and on that day instead of producing witnesses the present application was moved. The plaintiff has further submitted that the document sought to be produced by the present application was always in the knowledge of the defendants and has been deliberately withheld to delay the proceedings in the case which have been pending in this Court since the year 1987. It has also been submitted on behalf of the plaintiff that the pleadings in the present application and in particular Para No.4 are vague and evasive and do not demonstrate bonafides on behalf of the defendants.
4. The Para 4 of the present application under consideration reads as follows:
"It is submitted that the Lease Deed dated 26.8.63 and plan annexed to the Lease Deed were mixed up with hold records since the office of the defendants Corporation shifted from one place to another several time. Due to the said reason the said documents could not be filed earlier. However, the said document has been traced only recently."
5. The averments in Paragraph 4 are vague and devoid of details. General and non-specific phrases such as 'several time' and 'traced only recently' do not give any detail as to the date on which the document in question was traced and how many times the office of the defendant shifted. The defendant have relied upon a judgment reported in Maj. Gen. A.K. Luthra Vs. Malkit Mamrath 1993 (26) DRJ which holds that all rules of procedure have been made to serve the interest of justice and in the dispensation of justice, it is imminently desirable that courts must keep doors open and permit light coming from any quarter at any stage, so as long as no prejudice or injustice is caused to the other side. This judgment does not apply to the facts of the present case. A clear finding has been arrived at earlier that prejudice has been caused to the plaintiff by the delay in the disposal of the present suit and allowing of this application would not be in the interest of justice. Accordingly, the ratio of the above judgment does not apply.
6. Furthermore, the defendants' conduct in these proceedings enumerated in the earlier part of this judgment clearly demonstrates that the defendants have delayed the proceedings pending in this Court repeatedly in a matter which demonstrates a studied indifference to a prompt disposal of this suit of the 1987 vintage. Considering the fact that the delay in the disposal of the suit does not hurt the defendants, this application cannot be considered bona fide. Therefore, I am satisfied that there is no merit in this application and in view of the vague averments in the application and the recalcitrant conduct of the defendants as enumerated above, the application is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 5,000/-.