Ramesh Bala Malhotra vs Suksham Kumar Chopra & Ors
2015 Latest Caselaw 8496 Del

         THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Judgment delivered on: 16.11.2015
+       FAO(OS) 626/2015

RAMESH BALA MALHOTRA                                           ... Appellant

                                          versus

SUKSHAM KUMAR CHOPRA & ORS                                     ... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant            : Ms Surekha Raman
For the Respondent           : Mr Naushad Ahmed Khan

CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

                                       JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL) CM 26650/2015 Allowed subject to all just exceptions.

CM 26652/2015 The delay in re-filing is condoned.

The application stands disposed of.

FAO(OS) 626/2015 & CM 26649/2015 (stay) & CM 26651/2015 (condonation of delay)

1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 06.08.2015 passed by a

learned Single Judge of this Court in IA 21262/2014 filed on behalf of the

appellant/defendant. The said application was filed seeking a prayer that the

documents, which had been filed by the plaintiffs/ respondents herein, be

taken off the record in view of the order dated 31.05.2007 passed in

Testamentary Case No. 9/1997.

2. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the

very same documents, which have been introduced along with the plaint by

the plaintiffs in the present proceedings, i.e., arising out of CS(OS) 96/2009,

had been rejected by the court by virtue of the said order dated 31.05.2007 in

the other proceedings, i.e., Testamentary Case No. 9/1997. Therefore,

according to the learned counsel, those documents ought to have been taken

off the record, as prayed.

3. We do not agree with the submission made by the learned counsel for

the appellant. First of all, the suit proceedings and the proceedings in the

Testamentary Case No. 9/1997 operate in entirely different fields. Secondly,

the reasons for not permitting the respondents to place those documents on

record in Testamentary Case No. 9/1997 were that they were sought to be

introduced at a very belated stage in those proceedings although the

documents were old. The Court did not accept the explanation of the

respondents with regard to the delay in producing those documents in the

said testamentary proceedings. The order passed by the learned Single Judge

on 31.05.2007 in Testamentary Case No. 9/1997 is self-explanatory and

reads as under:-

"% 31.05.2007

Present: Mr. Pramod Ahuja, Advocate for the Petitioner.

None for the respondents.

+ IA 6927/07 (O. 8 R.1(A) CPC by respondents 2-4) in Test.Cas.No. 9/1997

This application has been filed by respondents no. 2 to 4 seeking to produce additional documents. Issues were framed on 30.11.1999. Evidence has been led thereafter by the parties. The substantive evidence has already been recorded of the petitioner.

In terms of the application, documents which are quite old are sought to be produced and other than merely making an averment that they were not earlier known to the respondents, there is no explanation forthcoming.

In my considered view, documents at this stage cannot be permitted to be brought on record. A party cannot choose to keep on filing documents at different stages of suit proceedings contrary to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Dismissed."

4. We may also point out that along with the evidence by way of

affidavit Exhibit DW1/A, these documents, which are the subject matter of

the present appeal, were sought to be exhibited. At the time of recording of

evidence of DW1 (Mr Suksham Kumar Chopra) in Testamentary Case

No. 9/1997, the Joint Registrar had refused to take the same on record, as

they had already been rejected by the Court by virtue of the order dated

31.05.2007, which, we have already extracted above. Thus, it is clear that

the documents, which are being objected to in the present proceedings, had

not been permitted to be introduced in the Testamentary Case No. 9/1997.

5. But, as observed by us above, the documents were not permitted to be

introduced in those proceedings because of the belated stage at which they

were sought to be introduced. Issues had been framed in that case on

30.11.1999 and substantive evidence had already been recorded. The Court

also did not accept the explanation as to why they were being produced at

that belated stage. However, the order dated 31.05.2007 would operate only

insofar as the Testamentary Case No. 9/1997 is concerned. Insofar as the

present proceedings are concerned, the said documents have been introduced

along with the plaint and not at a belated stage. There is no reason as to why

the said documents should be directed to be taken off the record.

6. We agree with the conclusion of the learned Single Judge. There is no

merit in this appeal. The same is dismissed. The application for condonation

of delay in filing the appeal as also the stay application also stand dismissed.

                                          BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J


NOVEMBER 16, 2015                          SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
SR