PRADEEP BAILEY Vs. GILMA DANIEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ["CPC"], seeking to set aside the order dtd. 17/5/2023 ["impugned order"], passed by learned District Judge in Suit bearing No. CIV.DJ No. 697/2019, whereby, the learned trial court dismissed the application under Order 7 Rule 14 read with Sec. 151 CPC, filed by the petitioner/plaintiff.

(2.) Shorn of all unnecessary details, the brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that in the year 2017, petitioner filed a suit for recovery of possession, permanent & mandatory injunction as well as mesne profit in respect of portion of property bearing No. WZ5A/31, Vishnu Garden, New Delhi ["Suit Property"] except one shop against the respondent, who was allegedly allowed to reside in the property as a licensee. Respondent filed the written statement on 18/12/2019. Thereafter, petitioner filed replication along with the additional documents and petitioner also filed an application under Order 7 Rule 14 read with Sec. 151 CPC to place on record the additional documents. Respondent filed reply to the said application, stating that the documents were not filed along with plaint and that allowing them to be placed on record now, would cause irreparable loss to the respondent, as she will not have an opportunity to rebut such documents. The trial court vide impugned order dtd. 17/5/2023, dismissed the application on the ground that petitioner failed to justify the non-filing of the documents at an appropriate stage. Not being satisfied with the impugned order, petitioner filed the present petition. The relevant extract of the impugned order dtd. 17/5/2023 is reproduced below:-

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dtd. 17/5/2023 passed by the trial court is arbitrary, illegal and against the facts and laws applicable as the court failed and ignored to consider/appreciate relevant facts and documents produced by the petitioner. He asserts that petitioner has countered the false averments of the respondent in her written statement on the basis of the relevant documents like electrician license, membership of All Delhi Tent Traders Welfare Association, house tax receipts etc. He further submits that some documents like Wills dtd. 19/9/2000 & 24/8/2000 were not in power and possession of the petitioner at the time of filing of the plaint and were handed over by the sister in law of the petitioner in May 2022 and hence were not filed with the plaint. It is submitted that these documents are crucial for petitioner to prove his case and counter the averments of the respondent. Further, since the case is at an initial stage and evidence has yet not begun, no prejudice would be caused by allowing the application for filing additional documents, which are stated to be material documents for the purpose of proper adjudication of the suit.