Delhi High Court
Darpan Kwatra vs Ramesh Chanana on 6 February, 2009
Author: Manmohan
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Date of Decision: February 06, 2009
C.R.P. 174/2008
DARPAN KWATRA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Amar Khera, Advocate.
versus
RAMESH CHANANA ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjiv Bahl with Mr. Vikrant
Arora, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J (Oral)
1. Present civil revision petition has been filed against the order
dated 4th October, 2008 whereby the respondent/plaintiff‟s application
under Order 6 Rule 17 and Order 1 Rule 10 has been allowed and the
petitioner/defendant‟s application under Order 7 Rules 14 and 17 has
been dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the application
under Order 6 Rule 17 and Order 1 Rule 10 has been allowed without
hearing him. He has also drawn my attention to the order dated 18th
May, 2007 whereby the matter was adjourned to facilitate the
petitioner to file documents in support of his plea that Sh. Ramesh
Kwatra was the proprietor of M/s. Bharat Plastic Industries. He further
states that though the trial court looked at form ST -35 dated 22nd
March, 2006, but it did not look into other correspondence as well as
other ST-35‟s which clearly shows that Sh. Ramesh Kwatra was the
proprietor of the firm to the respondent‟s knowledge for a long time.
3. On a perusal of the order dated 4th October, 2008 passed by the
Additional & Sessions judge (in short „ADJ‟), I find that the same is
rather a detailed one and it takes into account even the arguments
being advanced today before me that the respondent-plaintiff was all
throughout aware that Sh. Ramesh Kwatra is a proprietor of M/s.
Bharat Plastic industries. Consequently, in my opinion, the impugned
order has been passed after hearing the petitioner.
4. In fact, the ADJ while allowing the application under Order 6
Rule 17 and Order 1 Rule 10 filed by the respondent-plaintiff has relied
upon ST-35 form dated 22nd March, 2006 which is only about 5-6
months prior to the institution of the suit, to reach the conclusion that
the plaintiff could have been under a bonafide impression that there
had been a recent change in the constitution of the firm and Sh. Darpan
Kwatra son of Sh. Ramesh Kwatra was the new proprietor.
Consequently, in my view, the ADJ has given cogent reasons for
allowing respondent/plaintiff‟s application and even the delay in filing
the application has been kept in mind by imposing costs on the
respondent plaintiff.
5. With regard to the Order 7 Rules 14 and 17 application, learned
counsel for the petitioner contends that the plaintiff/respondent was
required to produce shop books, bills, ST-35 form and all other
documents on the basis of which the suit for recovery had been filed.
In this connection, he relies upon a judgment of the Punjab & Haryana
High Court in the case of Som Parkash Bansal v. Managing
Committee, Hindu Higher Secondary School, Kaithal & Anr.
2003(1) Civil Court Cases 304 (P&H), wherein it has been held as
under:-
"4. I have considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the appellant and I do not find any
substance in the same. In a suit for declaration in
which a specific order passed by an authority is
challenged, the copy of the said order must be placed
on record, particularly, when the said copy is
admittedly in the possession of the plaintiff. The
requirement of Order 7 Rule 14 CPC is mandatory
and if copies of the impugned orders under challenge
have not been produced, the suit filed by the plaintiff
is not maintainable. I have gone through the
judgment cited by the learned counsel for the
appellant. The said judgment is not applicable in the
facts and circumstances of the present case. In that
case, in a suit for pre-emption the plaintiff did not file
the sale-deed along with the plaint. In that situation,
it was held that the plaint cannot be rejected, but in
the present case the position is entirely different.
Here, the impugned orders have not been placed on
record and exhibited by the appellant. This Court in
Messrs National Rice and Dal Mills v.The Food
Corporation of India, 1970 PLR 778 has held that the
documents, which are in the possession and power of
a plaintiff, upon which he sues, that is, which forms
the basis of the suit, must be presented to the Court
along with the plaint. The consequences of non-
observance of the provisions of Order 7 Rule 14 CPC
are laid down in sub-rule (I) of Rule 18, which states
that documents not produced or entered in
accordance with the former Rule shall not be received
in evidence at the hearing of the suit. The appellant
neither annexed these documents along with the
plaint nor he had produced the same during the trial.
The learned counsel for the appellant further argued
that by non-production of these documents, no
prejudice has been caused to the respondents. There
is no force in this contention also, as it is not the
question of prejudice which is to be caused to the
respondents, but it is mandatory for the plaintiff at
least to produce the documents which are under
challenge in the suit."
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent relies
upon Sub Rule 3 of Order 7 Rule 14 as well as Order 7 Rule 17 to
contend that the plaintiff can subsequently produce the original of the
extracts of the book of account that it has produced along with the
plaint. He further submits that in view of Order 13 Rule 1, the
respondent/plaintiff can be asked to produce the original documents on
or before the settlement of issues.
7. In the present instance, since the plaintiff/respondent has
initially filed the original ST-35 form and self-attested true copies of the
statement of account, the trial court can always direct at a subsequent
stage, the plaintiff respondent to produce the original ledger. In my
view, the statutory provision stands complied with by filing a true copy
of the account. Consequently, the impugned order calls for no
interference in revisional jurisdiction and the present petition is
dismissed, but with no order as to costs.
MANMOHAN,J
FEBRUARY 06, 2009
NG
