Interim Order 13

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: -1-
27 Civ Suit 200/24
Rajeshwari Vs. Jagjit Singh
25.03.2026
Present: Sh. Tahir Hussain, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff
alongwith plaintiff.
Ms. Diksha Anand and Sh. Parmanand, Ld. Counsel
for the defendant.
Reply to application under Order 8 Rule 1 A CPC
was filed on behalf of the plaintiff on 24.03.2026. The same is
taken on record. Copy supplied.
Arguments heard. Record perused.
By way of the application, the defendant seeks
permission to file three receipts pertaining to payments made to
DUSIB. It is pertinent to note that the application, as filed, is
vague and does not even mention the documents sought to be
placed on record. However, despite the said deficiency, the
substance of the application is being considered. It is argued on
behalf of the defendant that the receipts in question could not be
filed alongwith the WS as the same are very old documents and
could not be traced earlier despite due diligence.
Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff vehemently
opposes the application, contending that the defendant had ample
opportunity to file these documents earlier. It is further argued
that the application does not disclose any sufficient cause for not
filing the documents earlier. Thus, it is argued that the
application deserves to be dismissed with heavy cost.
It has been held in a catena of judgments that
procedural provisions are intended to advance the cause of
justice and not to thwart it. The Hon’ble Supreme court of India
-- 1 of 2 --
-2-
in the judgment of
Levaku Pedda Reddamma & Ors. vs.
Gottumukkala Venkata Subbamma & Anr in Civil Appeal No.
4096 of 2022 (Spl (c) NO. 7452/2022) has held that since rules
of procedure are merely the handmaiden of justice, even if there
is some delay in filing of documents under Order 8 Rule 1 A
CPC, the same should not be rejected outright and the party may
be permitted to file the documents on payment of appropriate
cost.
In view of the above exposition of law and after
consideration of the submissions made by both parties and the
material on record, this court is of the opinion that the documents
sought to be filed by the defendant are necessary for a fair and
just adjudication of the case. Consequently, the application stands
allowed and the three receipts sought to be filed are taken on
record. However, a cost of Rs.1,500/- is imposed upon the
defendant to be paid to the plaintiff for the delay caused. Cost
paid.
Be put up for DE on 02.06.2026.
(Dr. Saema Jain)
JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge
East/KKD Courts/Delhi
25.03.2026
-- 2 of 2 --