RAM SWAROOP Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri B.P. Nautiyal, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Jayvardhan Kandpal, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sudhir Kumar, the learned Brief Holder for the State/respondent nos. 1 & 2 and Sri Pramod Belwal, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 4.

(2.) THE plaintiff filed a suit for cancellation of the sale deed executed in favour of the defendant. During the pendency of the suit, the defendant filed an application seeking permission to file an additional document on record, namely, the registered agreement to sell executed between the parties. At the time when the application was presented, the court below asked the defendant to explain the delay, which he did by moving another application contending that the document was misplaced and it was only recently found. The trial court rejected the application on the ground that the explanation given was improbable. The defendant, being aggrieved, filed a revision, which was also dismissed. Consequently, the present writ petition.

(3.) IN the light of the aforesaid provision, a document can only be brought on record with the leave of the court. The court is required to be satisfied that such document brought on record would not unnecessarily delay the proceedings. In the light of the aforesaid, especially when there is no resistance at the behest of the plaintiff before the trial court indicating delay in the disposal of the suit, the Court is of the opinion that the registered agreement to sell which was executed in favour of the defendant and which may have a bearing to the suit in question ought to have been brought on record on payment of cost.