MRS. NALINI LAL vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & OTHERS

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 07th February, 2024
% Pronounced on:28th February, 2024

+ TEST.CAS. 22/2009

MRS. NALINI LAL ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Aditya Malhotra & Ms. Tripti Kapoor, Advocates.

versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & OTHERS ….. Respondents
Through: Mr. Divyam Nandrajog, Panel Counsel GNCTD & Mr. Mayank Kamra, Advocate for R-1.
Mr. Apoorv Tripathi, Mr. Dheeresh Kr. Dwiwedi & Mr. Mittal, Advocates for R-2 & 4.

CORAM:
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

J U D G M E N T
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
I.A. 19152/2022 (u/O VII Rule 14 r/w Section 151 of CPC, 1908)

1. The Application under Order VII Rule 14 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”) has been filed on behalf of the applicants/respondent Nos. 2 and 4 seeking leave to place certain documents on record.
2. It is submitted that the documents sought to be placed on record, pertain to the earlier litigation undertaken vide CS No. 3216/1988 (now CS No. 20/2016) presently pending adjudication before the learned Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, which are as under:
(a) A copy of I.A. No. 9629 of 2002;
(b) Certified copy of Order dated 09.12.2003;
(c) Certified copy of amended Written Statement dated 08.10.2002, filed by Shri V.K. Sodhi; and
(d) Certified copy of the cross-examination dated 24.02.2018 of Nalini Lal, in CS 3216 of 1988.
3. It is submitted that these documents could not be inadvertently placed on record earlier and now are sought to be exhibited in the testimony of R2W1/Smt. Manjula Sodhi and may be permitted to be taken on record.
4. The learned Counsel for the respondents Nos. 2 and 4 has placed reliance on the case of Sugandhi (Dead) by Legal Representatives and Another v. P. Rajkumar represented by his power agent Imam Oli (2020) 10 SCC 706; Mohanraj Rupchand Jain alias Chhajed v. Kewalchand Hastimal Jain and others 2007 (1) Mh.L.J.; Nurrallah Kamruddin Velijee v. Vishwambhar Kashinath Palekar 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 149; The Tripura Modern Bank Ltd. v. Sushil Chandra Dutta and others 1952 SCC OnLine Gau 75; Ram Saran and another v. Bansi Lal and another 1953 SCC OnLine HP 16 in support of her application under Order VII Rule 14, CPC.
5. The petitioner in her Reply has objected to the aforesaid documents being tendered for the first time in the affidavit of evidence of R2W1/Smt. Manjula Sodhi on the ground that the said documents cannot be permitted to be taken on record at this belated stage. Serious prejudice would be caused to her if the said documents are permitted to be taken on record as the entire evidence of the petitioner already stands concluded.

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the case of Polyflor Limited v. A.N. Goenka and Ors. 2016 (156) DRJ 600 to assert that additional documents cannot be filed at such a belated stage without any justifiable reason.
7. The applicants/respondent Nos. 2 and 4 have vide their Rejoinder reiterated their contentions made in the application and have further stated that the said documents were always in knowledge and possession of the Petitioner and the respondents are seeking to bring them on record with the sole purpose of showing the stand taken by the Petitioner before the Ld. ADJ, Patiala House Courts in CS No. 20 of 2016. Thus, the application is liable to be allowed.
8. Submissions heard.
9. The respondent Nos. 2 and 4 have sought to produce certain documents by preferring the application under Order VII Rule 14, CPC.
10. The provision of Order VII Rule 14 of CPC creates a bar on production of additional documents, if the same have not been mentioned in the List of Documents annexed to the plaint and produced at the time of filing the same, unless the leave of the court is sought.
11. In the case of MohanRaj (Supra) the Bombay High Court discussed the object of Order VII Rule 14, CPC and observed that the provision is enacted to assist the parties and the Courts in the manner of production of documentary evidence while adjudicating the disputes, to arrive at an appropriate decision on the matter. In this regard, the provision is to be construed liberally and a pedantic approach should not be taken while enforcing the provision of law. A documentary evidence which is relevant and material for the just and appropriate decision, should be allowed to be produced and merely because the party failed to enter the same in the list annexed to the plaint, it should not be ignored, unless the plaintiff can show that there would be real prejudice caused if such permission is granted.
12. In the case of Sugandhi (Dead) by Legal Representatives and Another (Supra), the Apex Court discussed the factors which must be considered while granting permission to produce additional documents under Order VIII Rule 1-A. It was observed that procedure is the handmaid of justice. If the procedural violation does not cause prejudice to the adversary party, procedural and technical hurdles should not come in the way of the Courts while doing substantial justice. Thus, the Courts should take a lenient view while deciding an application under Order VIII Rule 1-A, CPC.
13. Thus, the Court must exercise its discretion when the documents sought to be produced are relevant for the controversy in dispute under Order VII Rule 14 or Order VIII Rule 1-A, CPC.
14. In the present case, out of the four documents as detailed above which are sought to be placed on record by R2W1/Smt. Manjula Sodhi, is the certified copy of the Order dated 09.12.2003; and the other document is the certified copy of the cross-examination dated 24.02.2018 of Nalini Lal (petitioner in the present petition) in CS No. 3216/1988. These are public documents and, therefore, the copies of the said public documents are per se admissible.
15. The other two documents are the Application No. I.A. 9629/2002 and the amended Written Statement dated 08.10.2002 filed by Shri V.K. Sodhi in CS No. 3216/1988. The only objection taken by the petitioner is that these documents were not filed earlier and she cannot be taken by surprise at this stage. However, it is pertinent to refer to the Paragraph-7 of her own Plaint and her Rejoinder, wherein she herself has referred to the earlier litigation undertaken in CS No. 3216/1988. Once, the petitioner herself has referred to this litigation, she cannot now claim that the earlier proceedings were not in her knowledge or that she is taken by surprise.
16. As these documents have been found relevant, preventing them from placing on record would cause serious prejudice to the determination of the real controversy inter se the parties.
17. The case of Polyflor Limited (Supra), relied on by the petitioner, is distinguishable on facts as the documents sought to be produced in that case were photocopies of the Annual Reports of the plaintiff Company. It was observed that there was no reason for the non-production of the documents which were in their control and custody, in the first instance and since the documents were not mentioned in any pleading, the same were not allowed to be filed.
18. In the present case as already observed, some of the documents were public documents pertaining to the litigation about which the petitioner had herself mentioned in her plaint and rejoinder. Thus, her contention that she is taken by surprise by the documents sought to be now placed on record, is not tenable.
19. The Application under Order VII Rule 14 read with Section 151 of CPC is allowed and the aforesaid documents are taken on record, subject to costs of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid by R2W1/Smt. Manjula Sodhi to the plaintiff. However, it is clarified that the petitioner shall have a right to lead rebuttal evidence, if any, in view of the aforesaid documents which have been permitted to be taken on record in the evidence of the respondent Nos. 2 and 4.
I.A. 19094/2023 (u/S 151 of CPC, 1908 for Expungement of Portions of Affidavit of Evidence of the Respondent)
20. The petitioner vide her application has taken an objection to the portions of evidence in affidavit of evidence of R2W1/Smt. Manjula Sodhi in regard to the aforementioned documents which had not been placed on record before tendering of the affidavit of evidence on behalf of the respondent No. 2 and has sought expungement/striking down of those paragraphs of the affidavit of the respondent No. 2, R2W1 which pertain to the documents which are yet not on record. Further, direction be given to respondent No. 2, R2W1 to file a fresh affidavit in evidence as per the pleadings in the Written Statement.
21. Reliance has been placed on the case of Doctor Morepen Ltd. & Anr. v. Poysha Power Generation P. Ltd 2013 (137) DRJ 261, in this regard.
22. The learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 4 has opposed the application of the petitioner as vexatious and liable to be dismissed. Reliance has been placed on the case of Brij Prakash Gupta v. Ashwini Kumar, in CM(M) 650 of 2019 decided on 06.02.2020 by the Delhi High Court and Ramesh Kumar Arora v. Bhola Nath & Ors. 2011 (125) DRJ 356.
Submissions Heard.
23. Once the documents have been allowed to be placed on record, there is no reason to expunge such parts of the affidavit of evidence of R2W1/Smt. Manjula Sodhi which pertain to CS No. 3216/1988.
24. In the case of Doctor Morepen Ltd & Anr. (Supra), relied on by the petitioner, it was observed that the objected paragraphs of the affidavit were not mentioned anywhere in the plaint and thus, were struck down as they were beyond the pleadings. This case does not support the case of the petitioner as the parts of the paragraphs sought to be expunged pertain to CS No. 3216/1988, which is mentioned in her own plaint.
25. Accordingly, the Application under Section 151 of CPC, 1908 filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed.
TEST.CAS. 22/2009
26. List before the Joint Registrar for concluding the evidence of the respondents on 22.03.2024.

(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE

FEBRUARY 28, 2024
S.Sharma

TEST.CAS. 22/2009 Page 7 of 7