Delhi High Court
Shri Harkesh Singh & Anr. vs Shri Ved Raj on 2 February, 2010
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve:18th January, 2010
Date of Order: February 02, 2010
CM(M) No. 945/2007
% 02.02.2010
Shri Harkesh Singh & Anr. ... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Advocate
Versus
Shri Ved Raj ... Respondents
Through:
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
JUDGMENT
1. By this application the petitioners (defendants in the suit) have
assailed order dated 16th April, 2007 whereby application made by the petitioners
under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC for taking additional affidavit on record was dismissed by
the trial Court.
2. When the application was made, the case was at the stage of
defendant's' evidence and plaintiff's evidence had already been closed. In the
application, the defendants stated that due to inadvertence, they could not file few
documents along with WS; one was the sale deed of property no. 678, Bhola Nagar
and other was Khasra Girdavari of property showing that the property in question
was not in possession of the defendants and it belonged to Jai Chand. The learned
Civil Judge dismissed the application on the ground that the application was filed
without giving any reasons for non-filing of documents at the appropriate stage and
the witnesses of plaintiff had already been examined, cross examined and
discharged. Allowing of these documents would cause prejudice to the plaintiff.
3. Order 7 Rule 14 CPC is in respect of production of documents by the
plaintiff along with the plaint. Order 8 Rule 1A requires defendant to produce all
documents along with the WS. Order 8 Rule 1A (3) provides that the documents
which have not been produced along with the WS cannot be produced in the Court,
later on, without the leave of the Court. Order 13 deals with production, impounding
and return of documents and provides that the parties to produce all documentary
evidence in original before settlement of issues. Order 13 Rule 1(3) CPC makes
exception only in respect of those documents which are to be handed over to
witnesses for refreshing his memory or to which witness, may be confronted during
cross examination. Thus, if any documents are to be produced by a party, the same
are to be produced with pleadings. Subsequent production of documents can be
done only if the Court is satisfied with the grounds explained for non production of
documents.
4. In the present case, the petitioners had not filed the documents along
with the WS neither filed a list of documents stating that the documents were relied
upon by them but were not in their possession. The only ground stated by the
petitioners is that due to inadvertence they did not file the documents. Inadvertence
is no ground for allowing an application for production of documents at the stage of
evidence. I find no force in the petition. The petition is hereby dismissed.
February 02, 2010 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
vn
