Indra Kumrawat & Anr. vs Lakhmi Chand Jain & Anr.
2014 Latest Caselaw 574 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                             Date of Decision: 29.1.2014
+     CM(M) No.97 /2014

      INDRA KUMRAWAT & ANR.              ..... Petitioners
          Through: Mr. H.S. Sharma, Adv.

                         versus

      LAKHMI CHAND JAIN & ANR.                     ..... Respondents

Through: None.

% MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI (Open Court)

1. This petition impugns an order dated 13.12.13 which dismissed the

petitioner's application under Order 18 Rule 3 CPC seeking to place on

record i) a bail bond submitted by the Defendant No.1 on 28.3.2009

before the Court of SEM and ii) a copy of a sale deed dated 25.3.2013

executed in favour of the wife of the Defendant no.2 who is the present

petitioner. The bail bond was sought to be filed since Defendant no.1 had

denied the signatures on the tenancy agreement i.e. Ex.PW2/1 and the

sale deed sought to prove that the defendant had made huge profits by

their unauthorized occupation of the suit property which resulted in the

trading of immovable property in the name of the wife of the Defendant

no.2, who was stated to have no source of income. While considering the

contentions of the parties, the Trial Court kept in mind that the suit was

for determination of damages for occupation of premises and not for

rendition of accounts of the business which was being run therefrom,

therefore the sale deed would not be a relevant document. As regards the

bail bond, the handwriting expert was examined at the instance of the

defendants' vide an order dated 1.9.2010. The said expert gave an

opinion in favour of the defendants, while admitting that the possibility of

an attempt to disguise the signatures in order to hide the identity by

Defendant no.1 could not be ruled out. The plaintiffs/petitioners now

want the said document to be examined by their own handwriting expert

to compare the disputed signatures with the signature on the bail bond.

The Trial Court reasoned that neither the bail bond could be placed on

record nor could the handwriting expert be examined, since the bail bond

was within the knowledge of the plaintiffs as they were parties in the

proceedings under Section 107, 151 Cr.P.C. before the Court of learned

SEM. Hence, if they wanted to use the bail bond for the purpose of

confrontation or admission of signatures, the documents ought to have

been filed before the framing of issues and could have confronted it to the

defendants' witnesses during cross-examination. Having failed to take

appropriate steps apropos documents and the proof of signatures, the

contention which the petitioners/plaintiffs now seek to raise, could not be

permitted, at such a late stage. Permitting them to do so would be an

unending process. This Court is of the view that a party which knowingly

does not press a contention or pursue a possible point of advantage or

defence, which may be available to it in law, cannot be permitted to do so

and that too at a much later stage. There is a time for everything, the

requisite steps must be taken at the opportune time. The stage and

window of opportunity for producing the documents was before the

framing of issues. Once the chance was knowingly not availed and the

vessel of the suit had sailed way out, there could be no turning back of the

clock of time. The decision in the impugned order and the reasons

therefor are plausible view in law. They do not suffer from any material

irregularity warranting the interference of this Court in its revisionary

jurisdiction.

2. The petition is without merit and is accordingly dismissed.

NAJMI WAZIRI (JUDGE) JANUARY 29, 2014/ak