Delhi High Court
Poonam Narula & Anr vs Brahm Lal on 30 July, 2025
$~101
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 30th July, 2025
+ CM(M) 1401/2025 & CM APPL. 46079-46080/2025
POONAM NARULA & ANR. .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Abhishek Wadhwa, Mr. Saurabh
Yadav, Mr. Rohit Taneja, Ms. Sonali
Rawat and Ms. Somyaa Gurung,
Advocates
versus
BRAHM LAL .....Respondent
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
J U D G M E N T (oral)
1. Petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 02.07.2025 whereby their
application moved under Order XLI Rules 27 & 28 r/w Section 151 CPC has
been dismissed.
2. Petitioners herein were defending a suit for possession and
damages/mesne profits filed by one Mr. Briham Lal.
3. Such suit has been dismissed by the learned Trial Court on 19.12.2024
and the defendants (petitioners herein) have already filed an appeal
challenging the aforesaid judgment and decree.
4. According to the case set up by the plaintiff, defendants were tenants in
the suit property whereas according to defendants, they had acquired the
ownership of the suit property.
5. Fact, however, remains that both the aforesaid issues have been
answered in favour of the plaintiff and, therefore, aforesaid appeal has been
filed.
6. During pendency of the aforesaid appeal, petitioners filed an
application under Order XLI Rules 27 & 28 r/w Section 151 CPC and claimed
therein that they had, recently, come to know that plaintiff had executed title
documents pertaining to suit property in favour of others. They claimed that
the plaintiff has tried to sell off the suit property to different persons and such
title documents were never presented or produced by them before the learned
Trial Court and since, they had acquired knowledge about the aforesaid
documents at a later stage and these were never within their knowledge during
the trial, they sought permission to take on record the aforesaid title
documents, allegedly, executed by the plaintiff in favour of one Mr. Rakesh
Kumar and one Mr. Sandeep Agarwal.
7. The aforesaid application has been dismissed.
8. Such order is under challenge.
9. The learned Trial Court took note of the nature of pleadings and also
the issues which had been framed in the suit in question and came to the
conclusion that the documents sought to be produced would merely suggest
that there were some transaction with respect to the same property and that
such transaction was between the plaintiff and some third party. The learned
Trial Court, therefore, and rightly so, held that these documents have no
relevancy with respect to the suit in question.
10. The Court could have given some indulgence, had the documents
reflected that the defendants were having little or interest in the suit property
but that is not the case at all. As per aforesaid documents, plaintiff is rather
creating rights with respect to the suit property in third party and, therefore,
apparently, these documents are not relevant for deciding the issues in
question.
11. This Court, therefore, does not find any reason to interfere with the
impugned order as there is no illegality or perversity in the same. The
application has been rightly dismissed as the documents, which the petitioners
wanted to place on record, have no relevancy with the issues in question.
12. Petition is accordingly dismissed in limine.
(MANOJ JAIN)
JUDGE
JULY 30, 2025/dr/shs
