Harkirat Singh Sodhi vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors
2018 Latest Caselaw 4656 Del

$~OS-19
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                            Date of decision: 08.08.2018
+      TEST.CAS. 38/2014
       HARKIRAT SINGH SODHI                               ..... Petitioner
                    Through            Mr. Lalit Gupta, Ms.Piyusha Singh
                                       and Mr.Nilind Jain, Advs.

                          versus

       GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS               ..... Respondents
                    Through      Mr. Sashank S.Tiwari, Adv. for
                    Mr.S.K.Tripahti, ASC for GNCTD
                    Mr.Ved Prakash Sharma, Ms.Amrit Kaur Oberoi,
                    Mr.Siddharth Bhardwaj and Ms.Abha Sharma,
                    Advs. for the respondents.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH

JAYANT NATH, J.(ORAL)

O.A. No. 50/2018
1.     This appeal is filed by the petitioner seeking to impugn the order
dated 06.04.2018 passed by the Joint Registrar dismissing the application of
the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC for placing on record
necessary/relevant documents.
2.     Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/appellant has filed the
present petition for grant of probate of the registered Will of his mother,
namely, Late Smt.Surinder Kaur Sodhi dated 13.01.1987. Respondent No. 2
who is the sister of the appellant has also filed a testamentary case being
TEST. CAS. No.42/2014 titled as "Amita Gandoak vs. State & Ors."



TEST.CAS. 38/2014                                                 Page 1 of 5
 whereby she has propounded an un-registered Will dated 07.09.2004 of the
mother, namely, Late Smt. Surinder Kaur Sondhi. Present case, namely,
TEST CAS. 38/2014 has been consolidated with TEST. CAS.42/2018 and
now, the two cases are being heard together. Issues were framed on
06.01.2017. The present application was filed thereafter seeking to place on
record various additional documents including the Will dated 29.12.1981
executed by Mr.S.Gurmukh Singh Chawla, the grandfather of the petitioner
and the registered Will dated 05.07.1985 executed by Smt. Raj Kaur
Chawla, the grandmother of the petitioner. It is pleaded that these Wills and
the Will which is the subject matter of the present probate petition would
show that they have been written in the same manner and structured in the
same manner. Other documents are also sought to be placed on record
including the certified copies of the probate case filed by Mrs. Narinder
Kuar Bedi regarding the Will executed by late Sh. Gurmukh Singh Chawla.
The additional documents it is pleaded are required to prove the signatures
of the testator and also the fact that the petitioner was close to the testator.
3.     The Joint Registrar by the impugned order dated 06.04.2018
dismissed the application noting that this is the third application filed by the
petitioner under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC since framing of issues. Earlier two
applications were allowed on 10.08.2017 and 30.01.2018 respectively. The
petitioner was also directed to file his affidavit by way of evidence. This
direction has yet not been complied with. The impugned order notes that the
only reason for not filing the present documents at an earlier stage was that
the documents were lying at Plaza Cinema and could not be accessible and it
is only while preparing defence in CS(OS) 90/2017 that the petitioner
chanced upon these documents. Noting that the successive applications



TEST.CAS. 38/2014                                                     Page 2 of 5
 being filed by the petitioner to place on record additional documents
indicates lack of due diligence on the part of the petitioner, the present
application was dismissed.
4.     I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
5.     Learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner has strongly reiterated
that the documents which are sought to be filed are necessary to prove the
case of the petitioner. He has reiterated that the two Wills which he seeks to
file of the grandparents and the Will which is the subject matter of the
present probate petition are structured in the same manner. He also reiterates
the submissions which have been made in the application as to why the
documents are necessary.
6.     Learned counsel for the respondents has strongly objected to the
present appeal. He has pointed out that there is no dispute that the Will being
propounded by the petitioner dated 13.01.1987 has been signed by the
testator. He submits that the respondents have however pleaded that the said
Will was signed pursuant to undue influence on the said testator. Hence, he
submits that there is no issue of the signatures of the testator on the Will
dated 13.01.1987. Learned counsel for the respondents also states that the
property in question is in possession of the petitioner and the petitioner is
delaying the proceedings as he is in possession of the property.
7.     Order VII Rule 14 CPC reads as follows:-
       Order 7 Rule 14: Production of document on which plaintiff
       sues or relies

       (1) Where a plaintiff sues upon a document or relies upon
       document in his possession or power in support of his claim, he
       shall enter such documents in a list, and shall produce it in
       Court when the plaint is presented by him and shall, at the same



TEST.CAS. 38/2014                                                  Page 3 of 5
        time deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with
       the plaint.

       (2) Where any such document is not in the possession or power
       of the plaintiff, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose
       possession or power it is.

       (3) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the
       plaintiff when the plaint is presented, or to be entered in the list
       to be added or annexed to the plaint but is not produced or
       entered accordingly, shall not, without the leave of the Court, be
       received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit.

       (4) Nothing in this rule shall apply to document produced for
       the cross examination of the plaintiff's witnesses, or, handed
       over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.

8.     It is manifest that the present application has been filed belatedly. In
fact, it is the third application filed seeking the same relief. I agree with the
reasoning given in the impugned order that there is lack of due diligence on
the part of the petitioner.
9.     That apart, most of the contentions which are sought to be raised by
the petitioner lose their significance in view of the submissions of the
learned counsel for the respondents, namely, that they do not challenge the
signatures of the testator on the Will dated 13.01.1987.          There are no
grounds made out to grant leave to the petitioner to have the documents
placed on record. I see no reason to interfere in the impugned order.
10.    The appeal is dismissed.
TEST.CAS. 38/2014
       Learned counsel for the petitioner may file his affidavit by way of
evidence within four weeks from today with advance copy.



TEST.CAS. 38/2014                                                    Page 4 of 5
        List before the Joint Registrar on 18.09.2018.


                                                    JAYANT NATH, J.

AUGUST 08, 2018 rb