* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ C.M.(M) No.964/2014 & C.M.Nos.17728/2014 (Stay), 17729/2014
(Exemption)
% 31th October, 2014
SH.D.C. THAKUR ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.C.S.Rathour, Advocate.
versus
SH.SHYAM SUNDER CHADHA ..... Respondent
Through CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. Challenge by means of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the impugned order of the trial court dated 05.9.2014 rejecting an application of the petitioner/plaintiff to lead further evidence. The subject suit is a suit for specific performance for a prospective industrial plot of 400 sq. yds. to be allotted to the respondent/defendant. The petitioner/plaintiff relies upon the two documents dated 28.12.1996 and 30.12.1996 to allege that the petitioner has an agreement to sell of the suit property with the respondent/defendant. The petitioner I may note is an Advocate.
CM(M) No.964/2014 Page 1 of 3
2. A reading of the impugned order shows that the petitioner/plaintiff has had more than enough opportunities to lead his evidence, led his evidence and thereafter his evidence was closed. The respondent/defendant thereafter also commenced his evidence. It is at that stage that the subject application was filed for leading evidence only on the ground that the earlier Advocate was "incompetent", though this specific expression is not used.
3. In my opinion, self-serving bald averments making the allegation against the earlier Advocate that the earlier Advocate did not know the law, and therefore he did not lead the evidence, is no reason in the eyes of law to permit the petitioner/plaintiff to lead additional evidence after the evidence has already been completed over many dates of hearing. Also the petitioner/plaintiff himself being an Advocate, though practicing in the income-tax side, cannot say that he is not aware of the basic procedures required in law for proof of various aspects.
4. I may also note one aspect that is very curious that except the two documents stated above, the petitioner has no proof whatsoever that any agreement to sell was ever entered into or acted upon and any money was paid by the petitioner to the respondent.
CM(M) No.964/2014 Page 2 of 3
5. At the conclusion of the hearing, I put it to the counsel for the petitioner whether he wants to take the benefit of Section 105 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) and to which counsel for the petitioner states that he wants a judgment from this Court on merits.
6. Powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are extraordinary and discretionary powers, and which are meant not to be exercised in a routine manner, more so in cases such as the present where a person has had more than enough opportunities to prove his case.
7. Counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Bagai Construction through its Proprietor Mr.Lalit Bagai Vs. M/s Gupta Building Material Store, Civil Appeal no. 1787/2013 decided on 22.2.2013, however reference to this judgment shows that exercise of discretionary jurisdiction depends upon the facts of each case, and this judgment does not lay down the ratio that in every case additional evidence should also be allowed after the evidence is closed.
8. Dismissed.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J OCTOBER 31, 2014 KA CM(M) No.964/2014 Page 3 of 3