* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 19.10.2011
+ CM(M) No. 1223/2011
CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND
CHEMICALS LTD. ...........PETITIONER
Through: Mr. Arun Khosla with
Ms. Shreenka Kakkar,
Advocates.
Versus
SHIVANI SOOD .......RESPONDENT
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Yes
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)
CM No. 19359/2011 (exemption) in CM (M) No. 1223/2011 Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. CM (M) No. 1223/2011 and CM No. 19358/2011 (stay) Petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 02.08.2011 vide which the application filed by the plaintiff under CM(M) No. 1223/2011 Page 1 of 3 Order VII Rule XIV of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') to place on record two registered lease deed qua two premises of the same building to show the prevailing rates of rent had been permitted.
Record shows that the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff for possession and recovery of damages/mesne profits. It is also not disputed that the said property has since been vacated. Issues had been framed on 01.032011 and it was thereafter that present application had been filed. The plaintiff by way of the present application sought permission to file two registered lease deeds of the same premises showing the rent prevailing in the said vicinity. The document sought to be produced by the plaintiff would more effectively lead to the adjudication of the case as the issue before the court is about the amount to which the plaintiff is entitled to i.e. damages/mesne profits of the suit property. There is no doubt that the documents required to be filed by the plaintiff alongwith the plaint, if for some justifiable reason it is shown that the plaintiff could not file the said documents alongwith the plaint, the court may in its discretion permit the plaintiff to do so even at a later stage. This power is well vested within the court and the exercise of this power by the trial court CM(M) No. 1223/2011 Page 2 of 3 permitting these documents to be taken on record which would throw light on the controversy in dispute does not in manner suffer from any infirmity.
The plaintiff in his application has stated that the two registered lease deed with respect to two premises situated in the same building are of dated 31.12.2006 and 31.12.2007; there is no doubt that the suit had been filed late in time but it was a case of inadvertence and mistake that the plaintiff could not file these documents at the earlier stage. Having made out a justifiable reason for not having filed the documents at the earlier stage, the impugned order permitting these documents to be taken on record does not suffer from any infirmity.
Petition is dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
OCTOBER 19, 2011 rb CM(M) No. 1223/2011 Page 3 of 3