GUPTA BUILDING MATERIAL STORE Vs. LALIT BAGAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER impugned before this Court is the order dated 25.02.2010 vide which two applications filed by the plaintiff, first application under Order 7 Rule 14 of the Code of the Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') and the second application under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code, had been dismissed. Vide the first application the plaintiff had sought permission of the Court to place on record certain documents; they were bills for the years 2003 -2004 i.e. for the intervening period from 01.04.2003 to 31.03.2004 which as per the contention of the plaintiff were reflected in the statement of accounts already exhibited as Ex. PW -1/G. The second application was an application seeking permission to recall PW -1 in order that the aforenoted documents could be proved in his version. Reply to the said applications were filed only on the preliminary points; reply on merits was not filed by the defendant; contention of the defendant was that the applications are an abuse of the process of the Court and require dismissal for the reason that the final arguments had already been concluded and in fact case was listed for final judgment when these applications were filed. Since there was no reply on merits, it is presumed that there was no dispute about the averments made in the applications that the documents sought to be adduced i.e. bills were reflected in the statement of accounts Ex. PW -1/G. The impugned order had dismissed both the applications primarily on the ground of delay; the court was of the view that the final arguments had already been concluded and reserved for judgment when these two applications were filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court dated AIR 1984 Delhi 439 Suresh Kumar Vs. Baldev Raj to support his submission that the stage of case alone should not weigh with the Court so as to overshadow other aspects of the matter and an order can be passed on an application under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code even when the matter had been fixed for judgment. Record shows that the present suit is a suit for recovery; the case of the petitioner is that he had supplied certain goods to the defendant and payments were made from time to time; the parties had a running account; however certain amounts remained unpaid; statement of accounts had been proved as Ex. PW -1/G. The further case of the plaintiff is that the documents now sought to be adduced are already reflected in the statement of accounts but since there was no reply on merits by the defendant, it is presumed that there was no such dispute raised by him. The powers of this Court under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code can be exercised at any stage; the words 'at any stage' have been interpreted to be read as before judgment could be pronounced. In the aforenoted factual scenario, the impugned deserves to be set aside; interest of justice so demands; the impugned order is accordingly set aside; the bills which are proposed to be filed by the plaintiff are taken on record. Permission is also granted to recall PW -1 to prove these bills. This order is passed subject to payment of cost of Rs. 5,000/ -.