Delhi High Court - Orders
Surendra Lal Mahendra vs Late Sh. B. Lal Mahendra Through His ... on 11 August, 2025
Author: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Bench: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
$~O-24
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 226/2020, I.A. 7232/2020, I.A. 5628/2024, I.A. 2263/2025
SURENDRA LAL MAHENDRA .....Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Saurabh B. Karan Singh with Mr.
Paras Arora, Advocates.
versus
LATE SH. B. LAL MAHENDRA THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIRS
& ORS. .....Defendants
Through: Mr. Bhagat Singh, Advocate for D1a
and D1b.
Mr. Saurabh B. Karan Singh with Mr.
Paras Arora, Advocates for D2 to D6.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
ORDER
% 11.08.2025
I.A. 4881/2025 (u/O VII R 14 CPC)
1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties on the instant application.
2. This is an application filed under Order VII Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The application is opposed by defendants no.1a and 1b, who are represented by Mr. Bhagat Singh, learned counsel. Mr. Bhagat Singh submits that in view of the facts and situation herein, he would like to present his submissions on the instant application without filing any reply. Mr. Bhagat Singh has taken this Court through the application, the accompanying affidavit and the apostille documents. He This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/08/2025 at 22:02:56 contends that the application itself was drafted on 20.02.2025, whereas, the accompanying affidavit is shown to have been attested on 19.02.2025. He submits that an affidavit in support of an application can only be sworn subsequent to the application. He also points out that there is inconsistency in the dates of the notary certificate as well as the apostille document. Additionally, he contends that defendant no.6 was being represented by the same counsel who represented the plaintiff. He, therefore, contends that the averments made in paragraph nos.2 and 3 of the application are completely unacceptable and are inconsistent with the earlier pleas taken by the said party. He also submits that there was no whisper about the existence of those documents during the life time of defendant no.6. He contends that therefore, there is no reason, at this stage, to allow the plaintiff to file the aforesaid document as additional documents.
3. With respect to the submissions made by Mr. Bhagat Singh, Mr. Saurabh B. Karan Singh, learned counsel who appears for the plaintiff, contends that the plaintiff has clearly stated in his application that it is after the demise of defendant no.6 i.e., on 23.01.2024, that the legal heirs of the defendant no.6 found the said documents in the belongings of the defendant no.6, and immediately thereafter, these documents have been brought on record. He further contends that the documents have a bearing on the controversy involved in the instant civil suit as the suit itself is for partition and division of the suit property amongst the family members. He also explains that insofar as the inconsistency in the dates as pointed out by the other side is concerned, the same is only superficial in nature.
4. Mr. Saurabh B. Karan Singh explains that the date of the application appearing on page no.16 therein, is not the date of its drafting, but is the date This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/08/2025 at 22:02:56 on which it was filed. He submits that the applicant is residing at Arizona, and after the application was drafted, the same was sent to Arizona. The notary certification is dated 18.02.2025 and the same was apostilled on 19.02.2025 and the date as appearing on page no.18 i.e., verification of the affidavit, is the verification after the affidavit was apostilled, i.e., on 19.02.2025.
5. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Court finds that the documents relate to the suit property and will have bearing on the controversy sought to be decided in the instant case. It would be also borne in mind that the suit is for the partition amongst the family members, the evidence has yet not commenced.
6. Reserving all rights and contentions as has been made by Mr. Bhagat Singh, learned counsel appearing for defendant nos.1a and 1b, the Court deems it appropriate to allow the said document to be taken on record. However, it is apposite to clarify that the question of genuineness of the document has not been adjudicated, and the same shall be gone into at the time of final adjudication of the suit.
7. The application stands disposed of, accordingly.
8. Let the matter be listed before the Joint Registrar on 18.09.2025 for taking further steps in accordance with the extant rules.
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J AUGUST 11, 2025 tr/amg This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/08/2025 at 22:02:56