Parivar Seva Sanstha vs Marie Stopes International
2014 Latest Caselaw 2827 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                           Date of decision: 30th May, 2014.

+                                FAO(OS) 274/2014

       PARIVAR SEVA SANSTHA                      ..... Appellant
                    Through: Mr. Sanjeev Ralli, Adv. with Mr.
                             Mayank Kumar, Mr. Awnish Kumar,
                             Advs.

                                 Versus

    MARIE STOPES INTERNATIONAL                ..... Respondent
                  Through: Mr. Hemant Singh, Mr. Sachin Gupta,
                           Mr. Shashi P. Ojha and Mr. Pranav
                           Narain, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

CM No.9836/2014 (for exemption)

1.     Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2.     The application is disposed of.

FAO(OS) 274/2014 & CM No.9837/2014 (for placing documents on
record )
3.     The appeal impugns the order dated 13th March, 2014 of the learned

Single Judge of this Court exercising ordinary original civil jurisdiction of

dismissal of Chamber Appeal being O.A. No.130/2013 preferred by the

appellant against the order dated 3rd August, 2013 of the Joint Registrar of


FAO(OS) 274/2014                                                  Page 1 of 5
 dismissal of application of the appellant under Order VII Rule 14 of the Civil

Procedure Code (CPC), 1908 in CS(OS) No.1691/2003 filed by the

appellant/plaintiff.


4.     Though the appellant/plaintiff had vide the application aforesaid under

Order VII Rule 14 of the CPC sought to file a large number of documents

but the counsel for the appellant/plaintiff during the hearing of this appeal,

confines the relief only to the documents collected in the year 2012 by

making enquires including under the Right to Information Act, 2005. It is

vehemently argued that the said documents were not available to the

appellant/plaintiff at any earlier point of time and are vital to the claim of the

appellant/plaintiff and to defeat the counter suit of the respondent/defendant

and thus should be allowed. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the High

Court of Karnataka in Nanjunda Setty @ N.S. Tallam Vs. Tallam

Subbaraya Setty and Sons MANU/KA/0813/2003.


5.     We have enquired from the counsel for the appellant/plaintiff, whether

not the appellant/plaintiff could have made the enquiries which the

appellant/plaintiff made in the year 2012, in the year 2003 also, when the suit

was filed or prior thereto or soon after the filing of the suit.



FAO(OS) 274/2014                                                       Page 2 of 5
 6.     The counsel for the appellant/plaintiff agrees but states that the

appellant/plaintiff was then not advised to do so.


7.     The same shows that the reason urged for the documents for filing of

which this appeal is confined, is really no reason at all. The fact remains that

the appellant/plaintiff inspite of its own laxity is trying to file documents at a

very belated stage.


8.     The suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff is already eleven years old.

From a reading of the order, it appears that the appellant/plaintiff sought to

examine three witnesses in support of its suit and out of which one had

already been examined by the time, when the application under Order VII

Rule 14 of the CPC was filed and the other two also have since been

examined. Allowing the appellant/plaintiff to file documents at this stage

would necessarily require giving an opportunity to the respondent/defendant

also to file documents as well as an opportunity to the appellant/plaintiff to

prove the documents which are permitted to be filed, meaning the trial will

get further delayed.


9.     When the appellant/plaintiff itself is to blame, we find no reason

therefor. The procedure and the stages for each step in the suit have been


FAO(OS) 274/2014                                                      Page 3 of 5
 devised to make decision in the suit systematic and if disregard were to be

shown to the procedure and the stages prescribed, the suits will never reach

the stage of decision. Though prima facie finding that the documents to

which the appeal is now restricted are such which can also be put by the

counsel     for    the   appellant/plaintiff   to   the   witnesses     of     the

respondent/defendant in cross-examination, the same was put to the counsel

for the appellant/plaintiff but he does not take the cue.       As far as the

judgment of the Karnataka High Court is concerned, the reliance of the

counsel for the appellant/plaintiff on the judgment of the Karnataka High

Court to urge that after the amendment of the CPC with effect from the year

2002, the Court is not to see the reasons for delay and is to only be

concerned with the relevancy of document if correct, is not acceptable by us.

We however do not deem it appropriate to deal at length with the said aspect

because according to us, this appeal itself is not maintainable. The order

impugned is admittedly not appealable under Order XLIII of the CPC. The

powers of this Court under the Letter Patents and under Section 10 of the

High Court Act,1966 are sought to be invoked.             However the order

impugned does not qualify as a judgment and cannot be said as an 'order of

moment' to be appealable. Order XLIII Rule 1A gives an opportunity to


FAO(OS) 274/2014                                                      Page 4 of 5
 challenge such orders in appeal against the final judgment/decree as well.

We therefore do not find any reason to interfere with such an order at this

stage and which will result in staying further proceedings in the suit.


10.    The appeal is accordingly dismissed.


                                                     CHIEF JUSTICE




                                              RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

MAY 30, 2014 'bs'