RISHI KHANNA Vs. SUBHASH KHATTAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this order, I shall dispose of an application made by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) read with section 151 CPC seeking leave of the Court to place on record a receipt dated 23. 9. 1996. It is stated by the applicants/defendants that the receipt dated 23. 9. 1996 executed by late Sh. Kanhaiya Lal Khattar, predecessor in interest of the defendant nos. 1 to 4, was found while rummaging the various bags and boxes in Flat No. 65, Double Storey, new Rajinder Nagar. This document in question was also signed by attesting witness Mr. R. K. Kapur who was also a witness to Agreement to Sell, Special power of Attorney, GPA and "will" dated 15. 11. 1996 filed by the plaintiff. The document relates to Flat which is subject matter of the suit. The document was very vital and has important bearing on the issue of controversy between the parties and shows the real transaction between the parties. There was a huge difference in the consideration as mentioned in this document and the consideration as claimed by the plaintiff. It is pleaded that the case was at initial stage and no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff in any manner if the document was allowed to be placed on record. The document could not be earlier placed on record because the defendants were not in the knowledge of existence of this document and discovered this document only when defendants thoroughly searched all the papers of late Sh. Kanhaiya Lal Khattar.

(2.) IN reply to the application, plaintiff/non-applicant has stated that the document had no bearing on the case. The document was not signed by Sh. Kanhaiya Lal Khattar as claimed or by attesting witness, Mr. Kapur. It is stated that Mr. Kapur was a witness of the plaintiff and after filing of this application by the defendants, non-applicant/plaintiff was in doubt about the credentials of Mr. Kapur and it appeared that Mr. Kapur had mixed up with the defendants. The defendants had not given any explanation as to why the receipt now sought to be filed does not bear signatures of the other witnesses. It is stated that issues have already been struck in the case and the controversy was in respect of the specific performance of the property and the document had no relevance.

(3.) ONE of the issues in this case is as to what was the true sale consideration agreed between the plaintiff and the deceased late Sh. Kanhaiya lal Khattar in respect of the property No. 65, First floor. I consider in view of this issue, the document sought to be placed on record by the applicants/defendants has important bearing. The case is at initial stage. The documents relied upon by the plaintiff as well as this document, all pertain to the same property and, if proved, this document will have great bearing on the case. I consider that it would be in the interest of justice if this document is allowed to be placed on record and proved by the defendant in accordance with law.