Interim Order 17

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 32 CS SCJ 406/23
BIMLA DEVI Vs. PRADEEP
10.04.2026
Present: Ld. counsel for plaintiff, Sh. Amit Rana.
Ld. counsel for defendant No.1 and 2, Sh. Adamay Pal
Singh.
Matter is fixed today for arguments on application under
Order VII Rule 14 of CPC filed on behalf of the plaintiff and
application u/o 14 Rule 5 of CPC filed on behalf of the defendant.
Arguments heard. Record perused.
Vide this order, this court shall dispose of both the
afore mentioned applications.
Application u/o VII Rule 14 of CPC has been filed on
behalf of the plaintiff seeking permission to file on record additional
document.
It has been averred in the application that after framing of
issues while Ld. counsel for plaintiff was preparing the evidence by
way of affidavit of the plaintiff, he realized the fact that the
Khatoni
showing the total land owned by Late Sh. Chhotey comprising of
Khasra No. 35/1 was not filed by the plaintiff along with the plaint,
however, the said document is not only pertinent for the efficacious
disposal of the present case but also, to bring on record all the relevant
facts. It has been further averred that the said document was not in the
possession of the plaintiff at the time of filing of the plaint and was
acquired subsequently, therefore, it could not be filed along with the
-- 1 of 4 --
/2/
plaint.
It is submitted by Ld. counsel for plaintiff that the matter
is still at the stage of PE and no prejudice would be caused to
the
defendant if the document is taken on record, therefore, his application
may be allowed and the document may be taken on record.
Per contra, it is submitted by Ld. counsel for defendant
that the plaintiff could have procured the document at the time of
filing of plaint and no explanation has been tendered by the plaintiff
for not filing the document at that stage, therefore, the document may
not be taken on record and the application may be dismissed as being
filed at a belated stage.
Perusal of the record reveals that the matter is still at the
stage of PE and the defendant will have the opportunity to cross-
examine the plaintiff regarding the document once it is tendered in
evidence, therefore, no prejudice would be caused to the defendant if
the application is allowed.
In view of the averments made in the application and the
submissions advanced, the application u/o VII Rule 14 of CPC
seeking permission to place on record additional document is allowed,
subject to cost of Rs. 2000/- to be paid to the defendant.
Additional document filed on behalf of the plaintiff is
taken on record.
Application u/o VII Rule 14 of CPC is accordingly
disposed of.
In sofar as the application u/o XIV Rule 5 r/w section 151
of CPC is concerned, by way of the instant application, the defendant
-- 2 of 4 --
/3/
has urged the court to frame additional issues which are as follows:-
a) Whether the simpliciter suit for permanent
injunction is maintainable without seeking
consequential reliefs of possession and declaration,
given the plaintiff’s lack of established right, title, or
possession over the suit property? OPD
b) Whether the documents dated 26.11.2021
(GPA, SPA, agreement to sell, affidavit, possession
letter, and undertaking) relied upon by the plaintiff
are unregistered, unstamped, and/or forged, and
whether they confer any right, title, or interest in the
suit property under Section 54 of the Transfer of
Property Act, 1882? OPP
It is submitted by Ld. counsel for defendant that framing
of additional issues is necessary for determining the real question in
controversy between the parties, therefore, the additional issues may
be framed.
Per-contra, it is submitted by Ld. counsel for plaintiff that
the issues sought to be framed by the defendant are his defence in the
present case and the same are within the ambit of the issues already
framed by this court.
Perusal of the record reveals that the issues were framed
in the present case on 30.04.2025 and the same are reproduced
hereinafter:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of
permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP.
2. Relief.
Since, this court has already framed the issue regarding
the fact, whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent
-- 3 of 4 --
/4/
injunction and considering that the additional issues sought to be
framed by the defendant are purely legal in nature, this court is of the
view that the said issues are already covered within the scope and
ambit of the issues already framed, therefore, there is no requirement
of framing additional issues as the parties would be at liberty to lead
evidence in support of their respective pleas both on factual and legal
counts.
Accordingly, application u/o 14 Rule 5 r/w section 151 of
CPC filed on behalf of the defendant is hereby dismissed.
Both the applications are accordingly disposed of.
Evidence by way of affidavit of the witness be filed on or
before the NDOH with advance copy to the opposite side.
Put up for PE on 08.05.2026.
(Akriti Mahendru)
SCJ / RC / North
Rohini Court /10.04.2026
-- 4 of 4 --