VINEET GOEL vs RUSHMI GOEL

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on : 02 February 2024 Judgment pronounced on : 01 April 2024 + C.R.P. 347/2023 & CM APPL. 61259/2023 VINEET GOEL ….. Petitioner Through: Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Advocate. versus RUSHMI GOEL ….. Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA J U D G M E N T
1. This judgment shall decide the present civil revision petition filed by the petitioner under Section 115 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19081 assailing the impugned order dated 16.09.2023 passed by the learned Additional District Judge2, North-West, Rohini Courts, Delhi3, in CS DJ 577670/20164 titled as “Vineet Goel v. Rushmi Goel and Anr.”, whereby the petitioner”s application under Order VII Rule 14(3)5 of the CPC, for bringing certain certified copies purportedly of public documents on the record was dismissed.

1 CPC 2 ADJ 3 Trial Court 4 Civil Suit 5 Order VII Rule14(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.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND:
2. Shorn of unnecessary details. the petitioner claims that he is an overseas Indian Citizen and also a citizen of United States and has been living in the United States since 1974. He got married to the respondent as per Hindu rites and customs on 11.10.1980 in Delhi and have two daughters and one son, and all of them are well settled in the United States. The petitioner contends that the respondent refused to permanently settle down in the United States, showing her inclination to stay back in Delhi.

3. It is stated that the petitioner in order to provide a better accommodation to the respondent and his children, purchased the property bearing no. 59, Kamdhenu Apartments, Sector-9, Rohini, Delhi6, from his own funds. As a security for the respondent and their children, the petitioner purchased the Rohini property in the name of the Respondent. It is stated that on the advice of his financial advisor, the petitioner out of his funds, had invested Rs. 19,90,994/- in the pre-launch property project of Ansal City Meerut7 measuring 450 sq. yds. It is averred by the petitioner that the monies were paid by him solely out of his own earnings and that the respondent has nothing to do with the same and the respondent is claiming those properties/investments as her exclusive investments.

4. The respondent had filed a divorce petition in Superior Court of Los Angeles, USA whereby the Learned Court was pleased to pass a decree for divorce on 14.06.2010. The petitioner also submits that the

6 Rohini property 7 Ansal Property

respondent has made a declaration before the Superior Court of Los Angeles, USA, that her earning was zero and was totally dependent on the income of the petitioner.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL AND IMPUGNED ORDER:
5. The petitioner in 2010, filed a suit for declaration and permanent and mandatory injunction against the respondent and the petitioner avers in his suit that he purchased the Ansal property at the insistence of the respondent in her name. As per his pleadings, he claims that he paid all the amount to the Ansal Land Mark Town Ship (Pvt) Ltd. against the plot. It is averred by the petitioner that he invested Rs. 19,90,994/- at Delhi by depositing it with the Delhi office of Ansal Land Mark Town Ship (Pvt) Ltd. The petitioner also approached the office of the Ansal Land Mark Town Ship (Pvt) Ltd., to delete the name of the respondent and substitute his name in their records but Ansal Land Mark Town Ship (Pvt) Ltd. categorically stated that it can be done only after obtaining an order to such an effect by the Competent Court.

6. The petitioner on 06.03.2019, filed an application under Order VII Rule 14(3) of the CPC, for permission to take on record certain certified copies of documents (bank account statement and certified copies of other court case records) along with Affidavit in Evidence. The said application was decided by the learned Trial Court on 16.09.2023, whereby the said application was dismissed.

7. The learned Trial Court dismissed the application stating that no certified copy of any document has been filed by the petitioner with

the application and the petitioner filed the certified copies of the documents on 29.04.2023, whereas the application was filed on 05.03.2019. The relevant portion of the impugned order is reproduced below: –

“During the hearing of the matter it was noticed that no certified copy of any document has been filed by the plaintiff with the application and thereafter plaintiff filed certified copy of documents on 29.04.2023. The documents filed on 29.04.2023 are not the certified copy of the documents mentioned „in the present application as they are obtained on 21.04.2023 and 24.04.2023 where as the present application was filed on 05.03.2019. The plaintiff was also asked to clarify about the relevancy of the documents for disposal of the present matter and it was apprised to the court that all the documents sought to be filed are relevant.”
8. The learned Trial Court also observed that the issues were framed on 26.08.2017, and the petitioner till the day the application was filed, has not examined any witness. It was also observed that the statement of account mentioning the cheque numbers has already been filed by the petitioner with his plaint and that no grounds were shown in the application as to why the petitioner was not able to file the documents with his plaint when the same was in his control.

GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL:
9. The petitioner has assailed the impugned order on the ground that the learned Trial Court did not consider the submission made by the petitioner that he should not be allowed to go through the rigmarole due to the utter negligence of his previous counsels engaged in the case before the learned Trial Court. The petitioner contends that his previous counsels had failed to file the relevant documents with the Civil Suit and in any case the documents which are sought to be

filed are the certified copies of Public Document and there can arise no doubt about the genuineness of the documents.

ANALYSIS & DECISION:
10. Having given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by learned counsels for the rival parties at the Bar and after having gone through the relevant record of the case, at the outset the impugned order cannot be sustained in law.

11. The reasons for such decision is not far to seek. Firstly, it would be expedient to reproduce the provisions of Order VII Rule 14 of the CPC which reads as under:-

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 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.”

12. A careful perusal of the aforesaid provision would show that the plaintiff is enjoined upon to produce documents on the basis of which he lays his claim, and which documents are in his possession or power, and a such document have to be indicated in a list filed along with the plaint. Likewise, where the plaintiff relies upon some

documents, which may or may not be in his possession or power in the sense, that the same are not available with him but could be found in some other record public or otherwise, in that event also the plaintiff is mandated upon to enter such documents in a list.

13. By virtue of Order VII Rule 14 (2) of the CPC, the plaintiff is enjoined upon to state as to where the documents are located and from where it could be sourced or reproduced. Sub Rule (3) to Rule (14) of the CPC comes into play when the plaintiff despite having documents in its possession or control face, fails to produce the same when the plaint is presented and/or fails to add in the list or annexed the same with the plaint. In such circumstances, leave of the Court is required to be taken.

14. There is no gain saying that it is a settled principle of law that rules of procedure are handmade of justice and not its mistress. The underlying objective of Order VII Rule 14 (3) of the CPC is that if the documents are relevant and have a bearing on the matter in issue, it is but necessary that such documents should be allowed to be placed even at the belated stage in order to effectively adjudicate upon all the issues. However, the leave cannot be granted when the documents, which are sought to be placed on the record to change the cause of action or introduce something into the pleadings by way of surprise, so as to change the entire colour of the cause of action.

15. Reverting back to the instant matter, the cause of action of plaintiff is that he had invested in the pre-launch project in question by contributing his own funds and it was purchased Benami in the name of his wife i.e., the respondent. Whether or not such cause of action is

permitted by the Benami Prohibition Act8 is an altogether different subject and this Court is not delving into the same. What the plaintiff desires is to place on record, the certified copies of the statement of bank account and certified copies of some other Court record so as to substantiate his claim in the property in question.

16. Evidently, the said certified copies were not filed along with the application on 05.03.2019 and were filed belatedly on 24.04.2023, but that alone cannot be decisive factor so as to throw away the application. Needless to state that the delay as well as inconvenience cause to the other party can very well be compensated in terms of money.

17. Evidently, the documents that are sought to be filed are emanating from the public record and there is nothing to discern that same are being filed by the petitioner/plaintiff in order to fill up lacunae in this case. There is no need for the Court to adopt a hyper technical approach at this stage. In the case of Billa Jagan Mohan Reddy v. Billa Sanjeeva Reddy9, it has been held that if the documents are of impeachable nature, the same can be led in evidence even at the stage of final arguments.

18. In view of the foregoing discussion, the present civil revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 16.09.2023 passed by the learned Trial Court is hereby set aside. The petitioner/ plaintiff shall file the certified copies, if not already, of the documents with the learned Trial Court within 15 days from today, subject to payment of

8 Section 2(A) in terms of exception (iii) and Section (iv) 9 1994 (4) SCC 659

cost of Rs. 25,000/- which shall be payable to respondent No.1/wife through RTGS directly in her account.

19. The present civil revision petition along with pending application is disposed of accordingly.

20. Nothing contained herein shall tantamount to an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

21. A copy of this order be sent to the learned Trial Court for information and necessary compliance.

DHARMESH SHARMA, J. APRIL 01, 2024 sp