Chambal Fertilisers And ... vs Shivani Sood
2011 Latest Caselaw 5151 Del

*     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

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

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