Delhi High Court
Primetimes Communications vs Hindustan Thompson Associates ... on 5 April, 2006
Author: A Kumar
Bench: A Kumar
JUDGMENT
Anil Kumar, J.
IA No. 1889/2006
1. Issue notice to the non-applicant/plaintiff. Mr. Sunil Goel, advocate, accepts notice on behalf of plaintiff and states that he does not want to file a reply. He, however, states that the documents ought to have been filed by the defendant with the written statement and late filing of the documents by the defendant may delay the disposal of the case.
2. This is an application by the defendant under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure to permit the defendant to file the documents and take the documents already filed by index dated 7th February, 2006. The defendant/applicant contended that the documents sought to be produced are the communication dated 27th November, 2002 which has been referred to in the written statement as also in the reply to notice served on the plaintiff. Besides this document, the defendant wants to file other documents which are communication dated 14th January, 2003 which was addressed to the plaintiff by which the communication dated 27th November, 2002 was sent to the plaintiff, undated letter by the plaintiff which acknowledged the receipt of the letter dated 14th January, 2003 of the defendant and letter dated 29th January, 2003 by which explanation received was communicated to Swajal Project.
3. The applicant contended that these documents are relevant and necessary to decide the controversy in the suit and these documents are either referred to in the pleadings or in the communications exchanged between the parties and the plaintiff had been aware of these documents.
4. The applicant asserted that since the document dated 27th November, 2002 was referred to in the written statement, the defendant/applicant was under the bona fide belief that the document had been filed, however, before the issues were to be framed, it transpired that these documents, the genuineness of which is not in doubt, had not been filed and therefore they were filed by index dated 7th February, 2006 and consequently the present application is filed. The issues in the suit were framed on 24th January, 2006. The documents which were filed by index dated 7th February, 2006 are the letter dated 27th November, 2002, a copy of letter dated 14th January, 2003, a fax copy of undated letter received on 21st January, 2003 written by the plaintiff and a copy of letter dated 29th January, 2006 by the defendant.
5. Perusal of these documents shows that these documents are relevant for the matter in issue between the parties. For the delay, which may be caused to the plaintiff, he can be compensated. The present suit is for recovery of money.
6. Considering the above facts and circumstances, it will be appropriate to take the documents filed by the defendant on 7th February, 2006 on record and allow him to prove the same in accordance with law, however, subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000/- payable by the defendant to the plaintiff. With these observations, the application is disposed of.
CS(OS) No. 903/2004
7. List before the Joint Registrar on 4.8.2006 for the admission/denial of additional documents which have been allowed.
