JAI SHARMA & ANR.  Vs RAMWATI & ANR. -Judgment by Delhi High Court

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on : 18 January 2024
Judgment pronounced on : 19 January 2024
+ C.R.P. 148/2023
JAI SHARMA & ANR. ….. Petitioners
Through: Ms. Kamna Gahlaut, Adv.
versus
RAMWATI & ANR. ….. Respondents
Through: Mr. Vijayant Kumar and Mr.
Manoj Kumar, Advs. alongwith
Smt. Ramwati and Sh. Prempal
in person
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA
J U D G M E N T
CM APPL. 30364/2023

1. This is an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 19081 moved on behalf of the petitioners seeking
condonation of delay of 51 days in filing the present revision.
2. Heard. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is
allowed and delay in filing the revision is condoned.

1 CPC

C.R.P. 148/2023

3. This revision is filed on behalf of the petitioners, who are
plaintiffs, in Suit bearing No.255/2019, whereby his application under
Order VII Rule 14 read with Section 151 of the CPC has been

dismissed by learned Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller, North-
East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi2 vide order dated
22.12.2022. Reply to the application has already been filed on behalf
of the respondents, who are the defendants, in the pending matter.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal
of the record, shorn of unnecessary details, suffice to state that the
petitioners/plaintiffs have filed a suit for recovery of possession,
recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits/damages and permanent
injunction claiming that they jointly purchased the suit property from
Smt. Pinky wife of Mr. Rohtash for valuable consideration vide
various sale documents, viz., General Power of Attorney, Will,
payment/receipt, possession letter and affidavit all dated 14.12.2012
and the suit property was let out by the petitioners/plaintiffs to the
respondent No.1/defendant No.1 for residential purposes at a monthly
rent of Rs. 3500/- exclusive of electricity charges by way of an oral
tenancy in the month of May, 2016.
5. It was further their case that in the month of April, 2017 rent
was enhanced to Rs. 4,000/- per month and the respondents/
defendants paid rent only for 4-5 months but thereafter they stopped
paying the agreed monthly rent. The petitioners/plaintiffs were
aggrieved that the respondents/defendants fell in arrears of rent since
July, 2017 @ Rs. 4,000/- per month and the same was neither paid nor
tendered despite legal notice dated 27.06.2018, and hence, filed the
suit seeking aforesaid reliefs.

2 Trial Court

6. Needless to state that the respondents/defendants on receiving
the summons for settlement of issues, moved an application under
Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC besides filing their written statement
and contesting the claim inter alia raising a plea that they had been
inducted into the suit property on the same being purchased by the
defendant No.1 for a total consideration of Rs. 6,00,000/- and Rs.
2,80,000/- was paid in cash whereas remaining Rs. 3,20,000/- was
agreed to be paid in equal monthly instalments of Rs.5,000/- but
subsequently the petitioners/plaintiffs became dishonest and they have
not come to the Court with clean hands.
7. It appears that issues have already been framed in the present
matter and is at the stage where the petitioners/plaintiffs have been
called upon to lead their evidence. The instant application under Order
VII Rule 14 read with Section 151 of the CPC was moved for bringing
on record the following documents at their behest:

�(a) GPA, agreement to sale, receipt, possession letter etc. dated
14th December 2012; and
(b) Copy of the complaint given by the defendant to the SHO,
PS Karawal Nagar; and
(c) Copy of ATR filed by police in the court of Sh. Devender
Kumar, the then learned CMM.�*:

8. The said application came to be dismissed by the learned Trial
Court, who relied on decision of this Court in the case of Asia Pacific
Breweries v. Superior Industries3 and made following observations:

3 dated 06.03.2009 (Delhi High Court)

�13. In the said case in hand, it is not the case of the plaintiff that
these documents were not in his knowledge, power or possession.
The plaintiff has not even mentioned as to why these documents
were not filed along with the plaint. Further the documents sought
to be produced by the by the plaintiff at this stage are not in his

power or knowledge or could not have been produced despite
exercise of diligence on his part. Therefore, I find no reason as to
why this court should allow filing of these documents at this stage
when the plaintiff is not able to satisfy the court about the reasons
for not filing the same with the plaint or before framing of the
issues . The only ground stated by the learned counsel for the
plaintiff is that due to inadvertence of the previous counsel they did
not file the documents. Inadvertence, as held by the Hon �ble High
Court of Delhi in the case of Shri Harkesh Singh (supra), is no
ground for allowing an application for production of documents at
the stage of evidence.
14. Hence, the application is dismissed being devoid of merit.
15. No order as to costs.
16. List the mater on 13.02.2023 for PE and arguments.�

9. At this stage, it may also be stated that during the course of
arguments it was brought out that one witness, namely Yogesh Gupta
has since already been examined at the behest of the petitioners, and
incidentally petitioner No.1/plaintiff No.1 also appears to have filed
his affidavit in evidence dated 21.09.2019. It is also evident that no
list of witnesses has been filed on behalf of the petitioners/plaintiffs
either and now the matter is listed for remaining plaintiffs� evidence
on 25.01.2024.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs in support of her
submissions that the petitioners/plaintiffs are at liberty to file these
documents even at the stage of recording of evidence of the parties has
strongly relied on decision of the Supreme Court in Mohammed
Abdul Wahid v. Nilofer & Anr.4
11. First things first, the petitioners/plaintiffs in paragraph (1) of
the plaint, which is on the record, have indeed made averments that
they are owners of the suit property by virtue of sale documents dated

4 2023 INSC 1075

14.12.2012, evidently such documents were not filed along with the
plaint as mandated by Order VII Rule 14 of the CPC.
12. All said and done, the respondents/defendants do acknowledge
that they have purchased the suit property by virtue of an oral
agreement from the petitioners/plaintiffs. Therefore, even if the said
documents are allowed to be placed on the record at this stage, there is
going to be no prejudice to the rights of the respondents/defendants.
At the cost of repetition, the respondents/defendants claim that
although part payment has been made and they have been making
payment of the balance amount through instalments, allegedly an
attempt was made in the month of September, 2017 when the
petitioners/plaintiffs came to their house along with some anti-social
elements and threatened them and their family members to get them
forcibly evicted from the suit property using muscle power.
Unfortunate as it may appear, learned counsel for the parties argued
the entire matter at a different tangent without even fully appreciating
the facts germane to the present matter.
13. In view of the foregoing discussion, I find that the learned Trial
Court failed to appreciate the whole gamut of the case and filing of
such documents at a belated stage would not result in any prejudice to
either of the parties. The documents sought to be placed neither come
as a surprise to the respondents/defendants nor do they improve upon
the case of the petitioners/plaintiffs either. The said exercise is not
falling foul of Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C.

14. In the aforesaid circumstances, the present revision is allowed
and the impugned order dated 22.12.2022 is hereby set aside with the
directions to the learned Trial court to allow the petitioners/plaintiffs
to place the relevant documents on the record subject to payment of
costs of Rs. 10,000/- to the opposite party, which be deposited in their
bank account. The petitioners/plaintiffs, if so elect, shall be at liberty
to file an additional affidavit with regard to such documents subject to
further costs of Rs. 5,000/-
15. Nothing expressed in this judgment shall tantamount to an
expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
16. A copy of this judgment be sent to the learned Trial court for
information and necessary compliance.

DHARMESH SHARMA, J.
JANUARY 19, 2024
Sadique