SHUBHALAY VILLA Vs. VISHANDAS PARWANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is listed under caption 'Heldup Matters'. Since pleadings are complete and learned counsel for the parties are ready to argue the matter, therefore, it is heard finally.

(2.) By the instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners/defendants are challenging the legality, validity and propriety of order dtd. 23/7/2019 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the Court of 14th Additional District Judge, Bhopal in RCS B/1600018/2015, whereby in a pending civil suit, the trial Court has rejected the application preferred by the petitioners/defendants for bringing certain documents on record.

(3.) At the outset, Shri Zargar, learned counsel for the petitioners has fairly accepted that there was some delay in filing the application for bringing the documents on record despite the liberty earlier granted to the defendants/petitioners by the trial Court vide order dtd. 22/3/2017 when their application submitted for the same purpose was rejected by the Court. However, according to him, the trial Court on earlier occasion had allowed only two documents to be taken on record whereas for remaining documents, it was directed to file the same along with an appropriate application. He has submitted that the trial Court has rejected the application only on the ground of delay and, therefore, he prays that by compensating the other side, the delay occurred in filing the application can be condoned and the application submitted by the petitioners may also be allowed. He has further submitted that since the evidence of defendants is yet to be commenced, therefore, the application submitted by the defendants/petitioners could have been allowed so as to give them an opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiffs' witnesses again on the basis of those documents. He has also submitted that the earlier application moved by the defendants/petitioners on 24/4/2018 was rejected by the trial Court vide order dtd. 9/5/2018 (Annexure-P/10) mainly on the ground that despite granting liberty on 22/3/2017, the defendants took more than one year for moving the application which makes their intention clear that they wanted to keep the suit pending unnecessarily and as such, learned counsel for the petitioners has prayed that by imposing some cost upon the petitioners their application may be allowed and they may also be permitted to bring those documents on record. He has further submitted that cross-examination of the plaintiffs' witnesses was closed on 10/12/2018 and as such, according to him, there was no delay in moving the application. He has also submitted that the application filed by the petitioners was opposed by the respondents/plaintiffs mainly on the ground that the documents which are being brought on record are forged and fabricated and, therefore, those documents cannot be allowed to be taken on record. He has submitted that whether the documents are forged and fabricated or genuine, can be determined after recording the statement, but at the stage of brining the same on record, the objection raised by the plaintiffs/respondents cannot be considered.