Delhi High Court
Madan Gopal Singh vs Mahinder Kaur (Deceased) Through ... on 11 January, 2018
$~9
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on:- 11th January, 2018
+ CM(M) 1406/2017 and CM APPL.45048/2017
MADAN GOPAL SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mandeep Singh Vinaik,, Advocate
with Ms. Anjali Sharma, Mr. Deepak
Bashta, & Mr. Manish Lamba,
Advocates
versus
MAHINDER KAUR (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS & ORS
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Vishal Maan, Advocate for R-1 to
R-5.
Mr. Arvind Chaudhary, Adv. with Ms.
Asha Chaudhary, Adv. for R-6 & R-7.
Mr. Sunil K. Mittal, Adv. with
Mr. R.K.Sachdeva, Adv. & Mr.
Anshul Mittal, Adv. for R-8 to R-11.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The petitioner is the plaintiff in the civil suit (CS
No.10322/2016) pending on the file of the Additional District Judge,
South-East, it having been instituted in 2005 for the relief of specific
performance, vis-à-vis the agreement of sale of immoveable property.
The parties went to trial on the issues being framed in the suit on
21.08.2007. The plaintiff examined himself as a witness and his cross-
examination stood concluded on 03.08.2010.
2. The case had reached the stage of final arguments when the
plaintiff, through an advocate, newly engaged at that stage, moved an
application under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking opportunity to lead
additional evidence and to recall himself as a witness for further
examination on the basis of some additional documents. The said
application was dismissed by Additional District Judge by order dated
10.08.2017.
3. The abovesaid order was challenged by the petitioner by
CM(M) No.979/2017 before this court. The petition was dismissed on
being found devoid of merit by order dated 08.09.2017. It may be
noted that this court affirmed the reasons set out by the Additional
District Judge in the order dated 10.08.2017 dismissing the said
application, the note whereof may be extracted as under:-
"....i) that the suit was instituted as far back as in the
year 2005 for the relief of specific performance of an
agreement of sale of immovable property; ii) that the
issues were framed in the suit on 21st August, 2007; iii)
that the petitioner / plaintiff availed several opportunities
for leading his evidence; iv) that the only ground for
seeking to lead additional evidence and to examine the
petitioner / plaintiff again, was by laying the blame on
the earlier counsel not knowing the law and having not
placed the material before the Court inspite of the same
being handed over to him; v) that the earlier counsel did
not conduct the case properly; vi) that the cross-
examination of the petitioner / plaintiff was completed on
3rd August, 2010; vii) that it is not as if the petitioner /
plaintiff is an illiterate person or otherwise not able to
understand the nature of the case or what all he was
required to produce; he is a businessman, residing in a
posh residential colony of South Delhi; viii) that the
petitioner / plaintiff was not handicapped by his age also,
inasmuch as at the time of deposition he gave his age of
53 years; ix) that though the earlier counsel was sought
to be blamed but merely by making an averment and no
action even has been taken against the counsel who was
sought to be blamed; x) that an advocate is the agent of
the party; xi) that the petitioner / plaintiff by placing the
documents and leading additional evidence was wanting
to commence the trial de-novo after the suit had
remained pending for over 12 years. ...."
4. It is conceded at the hearing by the counsel for the petitioner
that the order dated 08.09.2017 of this court was sought to be assailed
by special leave petition before the Supreme Court but the said
petition has since been dismissed.
5. Against the above backdrop, the petitioner, as plaintiff of the
suit, moved yet another application, now invoking the provisions
contained under Order VII Rule 14 read with Section 151 CPC
seeking to place on record the same very documents as had been
referred to in the previous application under Order XVIII Rule 17
CPC. The Additional District Judge considered the said application
and dismissed the same by order dated 27.11.2017 imposing costs of
Rs.25,000/- to be shared equally by the defendants. It is the said order
which is brought in question by the petition at hand.
6. During the hearing the counsel for the petitioner was asked if
the prayer under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC as made by the previous
application respecting certain set of documents, has been dismissed by
the trial court on 10.08.2017, and which order has been affirmed by
this court on 08.09.2017, the special leave petition against which has
also been dismissed by the Supreme Court, what purpose would it
serve if the same are allowed to be brought on record under the cover
of Order VII Rule 14 CPC. The counsel submitted that the purpose of
placing on record such material would be to persuade the trial court to
take a view thereon and pass necessary orders in their light, this in the
hope that the opposite party would be admitting such documents.
7. The above logic does not lead the petitioner anywhere. The
averments show the respondents do not admit the documents. What
could not be done directly cannot be allowed to be done indirectly.
The move for additional evidence to be allowed to be adduced on the
basis of this very set of documents having been repelled, there is no
purpose served by burdening the record with such material as would
remain extraneous and inadmissible.
8. The petition is wholly frivolous and, therefore, dismissed with
costs of Rs.50,000/- to be shared by the respondents.
9. Pending application also stands disposed of.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
JANUARY 11, 2018
vk
