Order 6

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: CS DJ 817/25 Usha Ghai Vs. Sanjay Ghai
04.07.2026.
Present: Mr. Chandan Rai Chawla, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.
Defendant Nos. 1 & 2 in person.
Mr. Keshav Sehgal, Ld. Counsel for the defendant No. 3.
Defendant No. 4 in person.
The case is listed for arguments in terms of order dated
07.03.2026 but it is submitted by Ld. counsel for the defendant No. 3
that reply to the application under Order 11 Rule 11 and 14 CPC has
been filed by the plaintiff though it was categorically stated on behalf of
plaintiff that no reply to the application is to be filed. In the interest of
justice, same is taken on record.
Arguments are heard.
During the course of arguments, parties are heard and
parties reached to the point where defendant No. 3 presses heavily for
directions to the plaintiff to produce the purported documents executed
by Ms. Savita Chakraborty in favor of Jaspal and accompanying
documents and further, purported original of perpetual lease deed dated
22.09.1991 executed by DDA in favor of Savita Chakraborty and the
documents purported to be executed by Jaspal in favor of plaintiff in
original. Plaintiff has herself only filed the copies of the documents
purported to be executed by Jaspal in her favour. Ld. Counsel for the
plaintiff submits in the reply to the application that no document
purported to be executed by Ms. Savita Chakraborty in favor of Jaspal is
filed at all and consistently stated that the documents would be filed at
“appropriate stage” and the documents would not be denied to be
produced if this court directs. He simultaneously took a stand that
plaintiff is the master of the suit, so she ought not to be asked to produce
those documents.
-- 1 of 3 --
-2-
It is noted that Ld. counsel for the plaintiff at one hand kept
on submitting that he is not refusing in any manner to file the
documents while those documents are not even attached or filed with
the original plaint and even the proposed amended plaint till time. On
the other hand, contesting the appeal filed by the defendant on the
ground that plaintiff is within her right not to file so no order in this
respect be passed.
Ld. Counsel for the defendant No. 3 submits his grave
apprehension on the part of plaintiff to keep the defendants in dark and
defenseless as the material documents on which plaintiff is basing her
case, is not being even produced before this Court.
This Court has given thoughtful consideration to the
contentions made. More specifically upon going through the reply of the
application, proposed amended plaint filed with the application seeking
amendment and the submissions, this Court finds that there there are
inconsistencies in the submissions. As a final call and to crystallize the
stand of the plaintiff, the statement of Ld. counsel for plaintiff in respect
of the stand of the plaintiff qua the production of the documents sought,
is recorded separately. In this statement, Ld. counsel admits that the
plaintiff is required to file the chain of the document as per his advice.
But simultaneously records that plaintiff is keen to file the documents
when plaintiff is specifically asked by the court. Plaintiff is required to
file the documents to which he is relying with plaint. From the
statement of Ld. Counsel, it is clear that plaintiff well assisted by Ld.
Counsel, has opted not to file the complete chain of documents on
which she is basing her claim of ownership. Let it be so, Order 11 Rule
12 CPC provides that on hearing the application for discovery of the
-- 2 of 3 --
-3-
documents moved by any party, the Court may make such order when
the Court is of the opinion that it is necessary for disposing fairly of the
suit or for saving of costs. There is a dispute between plaintiff and
defendant No. 3 as to the documents by virtue of which, plaintiff was
holding the title of the suit property. As per the plaintiff, he gained the
title of the suit property from Jaspal who himself got the title from Ms.
Savita Chakraborty whereas as per defendant No. 3, plaintiff got the
title from Ms. Savita Chakraborty directly, so when the plaintiff has not
filed the the very document or its copy showing transfer of the suit
property by Ms. Savita Chakraborty to Jaspal, original or copy of
possession letter, allotment letter by DDA to Ms. Savita Chakraborty,
this Court is of the view that these documents are necessarily for
disposing the suit fairly. So, plaintiff is directed to produce the
following documents on affidavit alongwith the copies of the same by
the next date. Plaintiff is also directed to bring original documents on
the very next day.
It is also clarified that mere production of the documents
by the plaintiff in pursuance to this order, shall not tantamount any leave
to plaintiff enabling her to place the documents produced on record or to
rely to support her case.
Now put up for arguments in terms of order dated
07.03.2026, for 29.07.2026.
(Aanchal)
District Judge-03, Rohini Courts
North District, Delhi
04.07.2026(amt)
-- 3 of 3 --