Order 5

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Order dated 23.01.2025
CS DJ 558/2024 CNR No. : DLCT01-008505-2024 Dharampal VS Gurmej Singh Page No. 1 of 9
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE-02
CENTRAL DISTRICT: TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Presiding Officer - Sh. Sandeep Kumar Sharma, DHJS
CS DJ 558/2024
CNR No. : DLCT01-008505-2024
IN THE MATTER OF :
Dharampal Singh
…..… Applicant
Versus
Gurmej Singh
…….. Non-applicants
ORDER ON APPLICATION UNDER ORDER VII RULE 14
CPC.
1. The court is rendering this order in response to the
application filed by the applicant under Order VII Rule 14
read with Section 151 CPC for placing on record the copy
of the personal demand notice along with the postal receipt,
complaints addressed to various authorities, and Ld.
Counsel for the defendant, all dated 24.07.2021. Besides the
abovementioned documents, the plaintiff is also willing to
place on record original bills/receipts, fatte & ballies, etc.,
-- 1 of 9 --
Order dated 23.01.2025
CS DJ 558/2024 CNR No. : DLCT01-008505-2024 Dharampal VS Gurmej Singh Page No. 2 of 9
issued on behalf of the plaintiff through mobile and
provided to the defendant.
The applicant is the plaintiff and the non-
applicant is the defendant. The parties shall
be referred to by the names listed in the suit
for the purposes of convenience and clarity.
Facts pleaded in the application (In Brief)
2. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff
that there are certain documents that could not be filed by
the plaintiff along with the plaint, as the same was not in
knowledge of the plaintiff, and recently all documents were
found in the trunk. It has further been submitted that the
plaintiff is a senior citizen and delay in filing is neither
intentional nor deliberate. Hence, it is prayed that the
application may be allowed.
Reply filed by the defendant (In Brief)
3. Reply to the application filed on behalf of the
defendant. Ld. Counsel for the defendant has opposed the
contentions made in the application on the ground that the
documents that are sought to be placed on record are forged
and fabricated and did not find mention in the plaint.
Moreover, the application is not maintainable at such a
belated stage where the affidavit of evidence of the plaintiff
has already been filed in court, and hence, if this court
-- 2 of 9 --
Order dated 23.01.2025
CS DJ 558/2024 CNR No. : DLCT01-008505-2024 Dharampal VS Gurmej Singh Page No. 3 of 9
allows the application, then it shall prejudice the defendant
at large.
Arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the parties
4. The Ld. Counsel for the parties argued in sync with
the contents of the pleadings. This Court has heard the
arguments and perused the record carefully.
Analysis & Conclusion
5. The provision of Order VII Rule 14 CPC envisages
as under,
“14. 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
-- 3 of 9 --
Order dated 23.01.2025
CS DJ 558/2024 CNR No. : DLCT01-008505-2024 Dharampal VS Gurmej Singh Page No. 4 of 9
of the plaintiffs witnesses, or handed over to a
witness merely to refresh his memory."
6. A plain reading of Order VII Rule 14(3) makes it
clear that the documents that ought to be produced in the
Court by the plaintiff when the plaint is presented but are
not produced shall not, without the leave of the Court, be
received in evidence on his behalf. However, before leave of
the court can be granted for receiving additional documents
on record at a belated stage, the party seeking to produce the
documents must satisfy the court that the said documents
were earlier not within the party's knowledge at the
appropriate time despite due diligence, and the relevancy of
such documents is also required to be quoted. It is not that
the party has a legal right to file a document at a belated
stage as it is in this case when the matter is at the stage of
hearing of the final arguments. The provision gives a
discretionary power to the court, which is to be exercised in
a reasonable manner.
7. The Hon"ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh vide its
judgment titled as
Bada Bodaiah & Anr. vs Bada
Lingaswamy and other 2003 AIHC 1285.(para-12) observed
as follows:
"12. Further, Sub -rule (3) of Rule 14 of Order VII
empowers the Court to give permission or leave to
the plaintiff to produce documents at a subsequent
stage of hearing of the suit. Order XIII Rule 1 and
Order VII Rule 14(3) have to be read together
harmoniously. Reading together would lead that if
the plaintiff applies for permission or leave to
-- 4 of 9 --
Order dated 23.01.2025
CS DJ 558/2024 CNR No. : DLCT01-008505-2024 Dharampal VS Gurmej Singh Page No. 5 of 9
produce documents to be received in evidence at the
hearing of the suit which documents were not
produced on or before settlement of the issues or at
the time of production of the plaint, the Court has to
exercise sound discretion having regard to the facts
and circumstances of each case."
8. The plaintiff has impressed upon the court that the
documents are relevant as well as crucial for the purpose of
a just decision of the case. The documents sought to be
produced are in the nature of bills, invoices, etc., from the
perspective of relevance, having regard to the fact that the
material was supplied to the defendant, and hence, these
documents substantiates the factum of supply of material
and therefore, the relevance of these documents may not be
undermined, as these are having a direct bearing over the
effective adjudication of the case. The documents are
undoubtedly crucial, given the issues involved between the
parties. Even otherwise, a threadbare examination of
documents on the anvil of relevance is not desirable at this
stage. Whereas the defendant side sought the dismissal of
the same on the grounds as mentioned in para. no. 3.
9. The paramount question that arises in the natural
order of reasoning is whether the plaintiff has made out a
case for the grant of such leave.
10. The first ground of objection of the defendant is
that the matter is at its advanced stage and therefore,
keeping in view the delay in filing, the same should not be
-- 5 of 9 --
Order dated 23.01.2025
CS DJ 558/2024 CNR No. : DLCT01-008505-2024 Dharampal VS Gurmej Singh Page No. 6 of 9
allowed. The objection of the defendant ex-facie is liable to
be rejected, as the plaintiff in paras. 5 and 8 of the plaint
categorically mentioned the fact of the providing of labour,
masons, and also arranged the fatte and ballies for the
construction. It is also mentioned in para 8 of the plaint that
the defendant did not make the part payment in regards to
the fatte and ballies. Therefore, it cannot be said that the
documents are alien to the proceedings and hence have no
relevance for the just adjudication of the matter. Further,
matter is at the stage of PE, and the tendering of chief is yet
to be started; therefore, it cannot be said there is an amount
of delay where the plaintiff ceased to have an opportunity
from the court.
11. The other ground of objection taken by the
defendant is that if this Court allows this application, it may
prejudice his rights. This contention also doesn’t hold any
substance and is liable to be rejected, as the evidence of the
plaintiff is yet to be started, and the defendant shall be
afforded with ample opportunity to cross-examine the
witnesses on the aspect of the genuineness and authenticity
of the said documents.
12. Moreover, it is the mandate of the notion of justice
that every lis deserves to be adjudicated on merits rather
than terminated on purely procedural/technical grounds. It is
well settled law that the Court should take a lenient view
-- 6 of 9 --
Order dated 23.01.2025
CS DJ 558/2024 CNR No. : DLCT01-008505-2024 Dharampal VS Gurmej Singh Page No. 7 of 9
whilst deciding an application for production of documents
under Order VII Rule 14 VIII CPC. It is also trite law that
while dealing with the procedural law, the old adage of
procedural laws being handmaid of justice must be kept in
mind. The procedural rules must not be read to defeat the
basic purpose of the statute or hamper justice unless the
violation of procedure would itself amount to grave
injustice.
13. In the counter of the objection that these documents
were not filed with the plaint, this Court finds force in the
submissions of the plaintiff regarding the fact that the
document was not in the contemplation of the plaintiff at the
time of the filing of the plaint. It is an admitted fact that the
plaintiff is a senior citizen, and it is not uncommon for a
person of this age to forget something. Moreover, in the
chain of judgments, various Hon’ble High Courts and The
Hon’ble Supreme Court have reiterated that depriving a
party to the suit of the right to file documents, even if there
is some delay, will lead to denial of justice. It is well settled
that rules of procedure are the handmaid of justice, and,
therefore, even if there is some delay, the trial court should
have imposed some costs rather than to decline the
production of the documents itself.
14. The same view has been reiterated time and again
that if the procedural violation does not seriously cause
-- 7 of 9 --
Order dated 23.01.2025
CS DJ 558/2024 CNR No. : DLCT01-008505-2024 Dharampal VS Gurmej Singh Page No. 8 of 9
prejudice to the adversary party, courts must lean towards
doing substantial justice rather than relying upon procedural
and technical violation. It should not forget that litigation is
nothing but a journey towards truth, which is the foundation
of justice, and therefore, it is essential to take appropriate
steps to thrash out the underlying truth in every dispute.
Therefore, the court should take a lenient view when an
application is made for the production of the additional
documents if required.
15. In view of the above discussion, this court is of the
opinion that to reach at the point of fair decision the
documents sought to be placed on record allowed to be
come on record as neither the delay in filing the documents
are so long that may not be condoned and the relevancy can
also be not denied as pleadings have been made where the
substance of the documents have duly been mentioned.
Thus, plaintiff makes out a case for the grant of leave to
bring on record the certain additional documents. Ergo, the
present application is allowed, and the additional documents
are taken on record subject to payment of the cost of
3,000/- to be paid by the plaintiff ( .2,000/- to the	₹ ₹
defendant and .1,000/- to be paid in equal proportion to the	₹
DLSA (Central) and DBA). Resultantly, the plaintiff is
allowed to prove said additional documents in accordance
with the law.
-- 8 of 9 --
Order dated 23.01.2025
CS DJ 558/2024 CNR No. : DLCT01-008505-2024 Dharampal VS Gurmej Singh Page No. 9 of 9
16. The court cannot be oblivious to prejudice that is
likely to be entailed to the defendant. Therefore, the
defendants are compensated with costs and opportunities to
produce such documents as may be necessitated by the
defendant for countering the additional documents of the
plaintiff, if any.
17. It is noteworthy to mention that any observations
made in the order are prima facie expressions on the matter
of controversy and made only to the disposal of the present
appeal and will not influence a fair trial of the suit on its
merits.
Announced in the open court (Sandeep Kumar Sharma)
on January 23rd , 2025 District Judge-02/Central/THC
-- 9 of 9 --