RAMESH KUMAR AND ORS. Vs. SANGEETA KHANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition impugns under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, an order of 11th September, 2013 ("impugned order") of the learned Civil Judge - 14, Tis Hazari Courts ("Trial Court") in Suit No. 1327 of 2011 ("Suit") which dismissed two applications of the petitioner; one filed under Section 151 CPC for placing documents on record and the other filed under Section 63 of the Indian Evidence Act for leading secondary evidence qua photocopies of the documents so filed. The case of the petitioner is that the said documents which are now being sought to be brought on record and for which secondary evidence is being sought to be led, were inadvertently not filed alongwith the Written Statement (WS) since all these years the petitioner/defendant had been under the impression that they had already been filed. The respondent/plaintiff had opposed the application before the Civil Judge on the ground that these documents existed prior to the WS being filed therefore they could not be permitted to be taken on record now.

(2.) THE Suit was filed by the respondent against the petitioner in January, 2000 seeking possession of the suit property and injunction against interference with possession. The petitioner filed his Written Statement in July, 2002 taking an objection as to the maintainability of the Suit while, otherwise, opposing the Suit. He filed his affidavit in evidence on 2nd April, 2013. On 14th August, 2013 - i.e., eleven years after filing his WS and four months after filing his affidavit of evidence - he filed two applications, one to place on record additional documents and another to lead secondary evidence qua the same on the ground that the same could be placed on record due to inadvertence; that the petitioner was under the bonafide impression that the documents had already been filed but this illusion was discovered only when the occasion arose for exhibiting the documents. The application was opposed by the respondent on the ground that documents which are now sought to be adduced are of a period prior to the filing of the WS, they could have been procured and filed alongwith the WS and surely cannot be permitted 11 years thereafter.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the impugned order, the petitioner has preferred the instant petition. It was contended that the Trial Court has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by not granting leave to file the documents. It was contended that the petitioner was always diligent in prosecuting the case and, in any event, the respondent would not be prejudicially affected if the documents were placed on record. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the documents were necessary for effective adjudication of the dispute before the Trial Court, and hence they ought to be allowed to be exhibited.