Nishant Hannan & Ors. vs South Delhi Municipal Coporation
2014 Latest Caselaw 3623 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                           CM(M) No. 262/2014
%                                                    8th August , 2014

NISHANT HANNAN & ORS.                                      ..... Petitioners

                            Through:      Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Adv.



                            versus



SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL COPORATION                           ..... Respondent
                            Through:      Mr. Neeraj Singh and Mr. Pushpendra
                                          Shukla, Advocates.



CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1.    The challenge by means of this petition under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India is to the impugned order of the trial court dated

10.1.2014    which    has     dismissed     an   application   filed   by      the

petitioners/plaintiffs under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC read with Section 151 Code

of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for filing additional documents.


CM(M) 262/2014                                                                 Page 1 of 3
 2.     The subject suit is a suit for mandatory injunction whereby

petitioners/plaintiffs seek mutation of their names in the record of the

respondent.

3.     The subject application for additional documents was filed when the

plaintiff's evidence was going on, and the documents which are sought to

be produced are the house-tax bills etc which are issued by the respondent

itself upon the predecessor -in- interest of the petitioners/plaintiffs. The

documents are therefore really unimpeachable documents. Supreme Court

in the case of Billa Jagan Mohan Reddy & Anr. Vs. Billa Sanjeeva Reddy

& Ors. (1994) 4 SCC 659 has held that if the documents are unimpeachable

documents, the same can be led in evidence even at the stage of final

arguments.


4.     In view of the above, I find that the impugned order suffers from gross

illegality and perversity in disallowing the petitioners/plaintiffs from filing

additional    documents     by    dismissing     the    application    of      the

petitioners/plaintiffs.


5.     It may also be reiterated that CPC is a handmaid of justice and parties

do make mistakes in the conduct of their cases. Therefore mistakes are

allowed to be corrected unless there is a grave prejudice to the other side.
CM(M) 262/2014                                                                 Page 2 of 3
 6.           In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside.

Petitioners/plaintiffs will be entitled to file the additional documents which

were sought to be filed in terms of the subject application under Order 7

Rule 14 CPC and thereafter prove the same in accordance with law. Parties

are left to bear their own costs.




AUGUST 08, 2014                              VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

ib