Interim Order 22

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: CS No. 542/23
Rita Tiwari vs. Santosh & Anr.
23.04.2026
Present : Plaintiff with Sh.R.N. Dubey Ld. Counsel.
None for defendants.
Today, matter is listed for order on application
under order 8 rule 1A CPC.
Be awaited.
(Gaurav)
District Judge-01/ SHD
KKD/Delhi/23.04.2026
(04.19 pm)
ORDER
1. By way of the present order, this Court shall decide an
application filed on behalf of the defendants under Order VIII Rule 1A
read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
(hereinafter referred to as “CPC”) seeking permission to place on
record certain additional documents as mentioned therein.
2. The plaintiff has filed a detailed reply opposing the said
application, denying the averments made therein and praying for
dismissal of the application with costs.
3. Arguments were heard at length on behalf of parties.
4. The defendants, through the present application, seek to place on
record various documents stated to be necessary for proper adjudication
CS No. 542/23
Rita Tiwari vs. Santosh & Anr. Page 1 of 6
-- 1 of 6 --
of the dispute. The documents sought to be brought on record include:
(i) order dated 20.03.2024 passed by the District Magistrate, Shahdara
along with pleadings therein (Annexure A1); (ii) Change of Name of
Taxpayer Certificate and property tax receipts(Annexure A2); (iii) legal
notice and WhatsApp communications (Annexure A3); (iv) a birthday
invitation card relied upon to dispute the residence of the
plaintiff(Annexure A4); (v) plaint and judicial proceedings in CS No.
465/2022 and connected orders(Annexure A5); (vi) police complaint
dated 14.08.2024 (Annexure A6); and (vii) electronic record in the
form of photographs and videos contained in a pen drive, along with
certificate under Section 63 of Bhartiya Sakshaya Adhiniyam,
2023(Annexure A7).
5. Ld. Counsel for the defendants contended that these documents
could not be filed along with the written statement dated 02.12.2023 as
the same were either not available at that time or came into existence
subsequently. The said documents are material for deciding the
controversy involved in the present suit, particularly in relation to title,
possession, and conduct of the parties, and therefore, deserve to be
taken on record in the interest of justice.
6.
Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has vehemently opposed
the application and contended that the application is devoid of merit
and suffers from lack of due diligence.
7. He further contended that except for the document dated
20.03.2024, all other documents were within the possession and
CS No. 542/23
Rita Tiwari vs. Santosh & Anr. Page 2 of 6
-- 2 of 6 --
knowledge of the defendants at the time of filing of the written
statement and no satisfactory explanation has been furnished for their
non-production.
8. He further contended that the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi,
while permitting the written statement to be taken on record,
specifically directed that the same shall be taken without any
amendment or correction, and therefore, the defendants cannot be
permitted to introduce additional material at this stage.
9. He further contended that the present application has been filed
only to delay the proceedings and to fill lacunae in the defence.
10. I have considered the rival submissions made by the parties and
carefully perused the material available on record.
11. The scope of Order VIII Rule 1A of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 obligates the defendant to file all documents in support of its
defence along with the written statement. However, sub-rule (3)
confers a discretion upon the Court to permit production of documents
at a later stage, provided sufficient cause is shown. The provision is
procedural in nature and is intended to ensure fairness in trial, while at
the same time not foreclosing the opportunity to place material
evidence on record where the ends of justice so require.
12. In the present case, the document Annexure A1 i.e. copy of order
dated 20.03.2024 passed by the District Magistrate, Shahdara,
admittedly came into existence after the filing of the written statement.
CS No. 542/23
Rita Tiwari vs. Santosh & Anr. Page 3 of 6
-- 3 of 6 --
Therefore, the defendants cannot be faulted for not producing the same
earlier. The said document, being a quasi-judicial order concerning the
subject property, cannot be said to be irrelevant at this stage.
13. Insofar as the documents at Annexure A2, being tax records and
municipal documents, are concerned, the same are in the nature of
public documents relating to the property in question. Their relevance
to the dispute cannot be outrightly discarded at this stage, though their
evidentiary value shall be subject to proof.
14. The documents at Annexure A3 and Annexure A6, i.e. the legal
notice, WhatsApp communications, and police complaint dated
14.08.2024, relate to events occurring during the pendency of the
dispute. Such documents, being subsequent in nature, are often relied
upon to demonstrate conduct of parties and surrounding circumstances,
and therefore, cannot be excluded solely on the ground of delay.
15. The document at Annexure A5, comprising pleadings and orders
in another civil suit, is a judicial record. The existence of parallel or
prior litigation between the parties is a relevant factor and such
documents may assist the Court in appreciating the broader context of
the dispute.
16. The document at Annexure A4, being a birthday invitation card
relied upon to dispute residence, may not carry substantial probative
value in isolation; however, admissibility at this stage is distinct from
evidentiary weight, which shall be assessed during trial.
CS No. 542/23
Rita Tiwari vs. Santosh & Anr. Page 4 of 6
-- 4 of 6 --
17. As regards Annexure A7, being electronic evidence in the form
of photographs and videos, the same has been accompanied by a
certificate under Section 63 of Bhartiya Sakshaya Adhiniyam, 2023. At
this stage, the Court is concerned only with taking the documents on
record, and not with their proof or admissibility in evidence, which
shall be tested during trial in accordance with law.
18. The contention of the plaintiff that the order of the Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi precludes the defendants from filing additional
documents is not found to be tenable. The statutory discretion of this
Court under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) CPC to permit production of
documents at a later stage remains unaffected.
19. It is true that the explanation furnished by the defendants for
non-filing of certain documents is not very specific and does not fully
inspire confidence. However, at the same time, it cannot be overlooked
that the documents sought to be produced include public records,
subsequent developments, and judicial proceedings, which may have a
bearing on the adjudication of the issues involved.
20. It is also pertinent to note that the suit is at a stage prior to
framing of issues. Therefore, no irreparable prejudice would be caused
to the plaintiff if the documents are taken on record, as the plaintiff
shall have full opportunity to rebut the same and to challenge their
admissibility and authenticity during trial.
21. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of
the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be served by
CS No. 542/23
Rita Tiwari vs. Santosh & Anr. Page 5 of 6
-- 5 of 6 --
permitting the defendants to place the additional documents on record,
subject to imposition of costs so as to balance the equities between the
parties.
22. Accordingly, the application filed by the defendants under Order
VIII Rule 1A read with Section 151 CPC is allowed, subject to
payment of costs of Rs. 5,000/- to the plaintiff on or before the NDOH.
The documents annexed with the application are taken on record.
23. It is made clear that mere taking on record of the said documents
shall not amount to proof of their contents or correctness, and the same
shall be subject to proof in accordance with law at the stage of
evidence. The plaintiff shall be at liberty to raise all permissible
objections regarding their admissibility and evidentiary value. The
application stands disposed of accordingly.
24. To come up for replication, if any, A/D of documents and
framing of issues on 28.07.2026.
(Gaurav)
District Judge-01/ SHD
KKD/Delhi/23.04.2026
CS No. 542/23
Rita Tiwari vs. Santosh & Anr. Page 6 of 6
-- 6 of 6 --