Delhi High Court
Manoj Gulshan vs Jai Dev Gulshan & Anr. on 25 March, 2014
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO No. 187/2013
% 25th March, 2014
MANOJ GULSHAN ......Appellant
Through: Appellant in person.
VERSUS
JAI DEV GULSHAN & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
CM No. 6368/2013 (delay in refiling)
For the reasons stated in the application, delay in re-filing is
condoned.
CM stands disposed of.
FAO 187/2013
1. The challenge by this appeal is to the impugned order dated
6.12.2012 which has dismissed the application filed by the appellant-
plaintiff for recalling of the orders dated 7.10.2011 and 14.10.2011.
FAO 187/2013 Page 1 of 4
2. The suit filed by the appellant is a suit for specific performance,
and which was pending at the stage of final arguments on 15.3.2011, when,
an application was filed by the appellant-plaintiff to record further
examination for exhibiting the documents by filing originals of such
documents which were already on record. This application was allowed by
order dated 15.3.2011 subject to deposit of costs of Rs.1200/- with the Prime
Minister's Relief Fund, and which have now been deposited though after
some delay. The admitted position which emerges is that defendants in the
suit were ex parte and the suit was listed for final arguments.
3. Appellant had argued his case before the trial court in person as
noted in the impugned order dated 6.12.2012. I have heard the appellant
who is present in person and who has made submissions that appellant will
be prejudiced if documents are not allowed to be exhibited, only on the
ground that only photocopies were filed, although originals of the documents
were available with the appellant and which were allowed to be filed in
terms of the subsequent order dated 15.3.2011.
4. Before me, relief prayed is confined to exhibiting of the
documents which were already filed during the course of evidence by
placing the originals of such documents on record. It is stated that thereafter
final arguments would be addressed.
FAO 187/2013 Page 2 of 4
5. In the case of R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder Vs. Arulmigu
Viswesaraswami & V.P.Temple and Anr. AIR 2003 SC 4548, it has been
held that there cannot be objections to the exhibition of documents unless
objections to the exhibition are raised at the time of giving exhibit marks to
the documents. In the present case, since the defendants are ex parte, the
documents which have been filed by the appellant-plaintiff can be exhibited
because there is no cross-examination to the same, and no objection to their
exhibition.
6. Accordingly, in view of the ratio of the judgment in the case of
R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder(supra) the documents can be exhibited,
however, I make no observations as to authenticity of such documents or the
weight which the court below will place on the exhibited documents, and
that the trial court will give its judgment based on the record of the case on
hearing the final arguments.
7. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed to the extent of
restoring the main suit at the stage of final arguments, and taking the
documents originals of which have been already filed as exhibited, however
subject to the observations with regard to their authenticity and weight to be
placed upon the same by the trial court.
FAO 187/2013 Page 3 of 4
8. Appellant is directed to appear before the District and Sessions
Judge (Central) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi on 6th May, 2014 and the District
and Sessions Judge will mark the suit for disposal to a competent court in
accordance with law.
MARCH 25, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
