Order 6

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 16 Civ Suit 340/25
CNR No. DLNE03-000568-2025
SH RAM BAHADUR
Vs.
SH KRISHAN KUMAR and ANR
25.08.2026
Present: Sh. Ankit Jain, Ld. counsel for plaintiff through VC.
Plaintiff in person alongwith proxy counsel Sh.
Yuvraj Singh.
Sh. R.L. Sharma, Ld. counsel for defendant no. 2
alongwith D-2.
None for defendant no. 1.
Plaintiff moved an application u/o VII Rule 14 CPC.
Defendant already filed reply to above application.
Arguments advanced at length on an application u/o
VII Rule 14 CPC.
It is submitted by Ld. counsel for applicant/plaintiff
that although the documents were in possession of applicant but
inadvertently, the plaintiff not filed the same alongwith plaint and
same was also not filed due to fault of previous counsel but those
are necesary for correct appraisal of the matter.
Per contra, it is submitted on behalf of
respondent/defendant that it is admitted on the part of applicant
that they were having the documents in their posession and now
the issues has already been framed and the applicant has not
assigned any cogent reason for not filing the documents
alongwith plaint. It is further submitted that the applicant is
-- 1 of 3 --
bringing on record certain ownership document in favour of
plaintiff which strictly needed the rebuttal towards claim of
ownership of suit property and if the present application is
allowed, then it would tantamount to depriving the defendant
from raising any defence against the ownership claim of plaintiff
over suit property as the WS has already been filed and now the
matter is at stage of evidence after framing of issues. It is further
submitted that by this application, the defendant will be deprived
of to say anyting or to give any rebuttal to ownership of plaintiff
claim by way of present document as the plaintiff has not moved
any application u/o VI Rule 17 CPC but deliberately preferred
the application u/o VII Rule 14 CPC so as to deprive the
defendant from raising any defence at the stage of evidence as
the defendant has not utter even single thing in the written
statement due to non mentioning of aforesaid document by the
plaintiff in the plaint.
Perusal of record shows that plaintiff has filed the
present suit for vacation of property against the defendant.
Plaintiff has specifically claimed himself to be owner of suit
property but plaintiff not placed on record any document of
ownership. The defendant no. 1/son of plaintiff is also not
contesting the suit diligently as he has not filed any WS till date
and also not causing his appearance despite service of summons.
Now, it is only the defendant no. 2 who is contesting the matter.
The plaintiff/applicant failed to explain any cogent reason that
why he not placed on record the above documents at the time of
-- 2 of 3 --
filing of suit. In absence of any such explanation and also
keeping the submissions made on behalf of defendant no. 2, no
ground found, above application u/o VII Rule 14 CPC stands
dismissed.
Matter is adjourned for PE.
It be relisted on 28.10.2026.
AJAY KUMAR MALIK
JSCC/ASCJ/G.JUDGE (N/E)
25.08.2026
-- 3 of 3 --