Delhi District Court
Shri Sanjeev Narula vs Shri Pargat Singh & Anr on 24 April, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJNISH BHATNAGAR; ADJ(CENTRAL)11,DELHI
Suit No. : 13/12
Shri Sanjeev Narula
......Plaintiff
vs.
Shri Pargat Singh & Anr.
......Defendants
ORDER
1. By this order, I shall dispose of an application moved on behalf of the plaintiff U/o VII Rule 14 (3), Order XVI Rule 1, Order XVIII Rule 17 read with section 151 CPC.
2. It is averred in the application that the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff/applicant hererin against the defendant for recovery of possession, damages, mesne profits, declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction.
3. It is further averred in the application that the defendant has propagated a false and frivolous defence in his written statement, based on the allegations, which inter alia are that the defendant No. 1 initially in the year 1972, took one shop measuring 12' X 8' on ground floor of property No. 25/1C, Gali No. 10, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi, from grandfather of the plaintiff Shri Hari Kishan Narula through, known person on rent of Rs. 70 per month; that defendant No. 1 continued paying the rent to said Shri Hari Kishan Narula, who represented himself as the landlord/owner; that the defendant started doing the business of motor winding in the said shop in the name and Suit No. 13/12 Page no. 1/6 style of M/s Dhanjan electrical works, independently; that the defendant No. 1, went to Dubai in the year 1992, for doing his job and remained there for years, and in his absence his wife, Smt. Amarjeet Kaur continued paying the rent to the said Shri Hari Kishan Narula; that during the visit of defendant No. 1 to Indian in the mid of January 1997, Shri Hari Krishan Narula offered to sell, a newly renovated shop to the defendant No. 1, adjoining to his tenanted shop and the defendant No. 1, agreed to purchase the same for a total sale consideration of Rs. 44,000/- only; that the defendant No. 1 sent money from Dubai to Indian to his wife who paid a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as earnest money to Shri Hari Kishan Narula on 10-07-1997, in presence of the persons, namely Shri Trilok Singh and Shri Balbir Singh and the balance sale consideration of Rs. 34,000/- was paid by the wife of respondent No. 1 to Shri Hari Kishan Narula on 14-10-1997, i presence of Shri Jagdish Singh, Shri Mohinder Mittal, Shri Balbir Singh, Shri Ram Singh and Shri Trilok Singh at the office of Shri Hari Kishan Narula at Balaji Dharam Kanta at 25/1-C, Gali No. 10, Anand Parbat, New Delhi; that prior to this, wife of defendant No. 1 paid /cleared the entire up to date rent of the aforesaid tenanted shop to Shri Hari Kishan Narula and surrendered its possession and the said Shri Hari Kishan Narula handed over the physical possession of the said newly renovated sold shop to Smt. Amarjeet Kaur on 14-10-1997 itself; that thereafter the defendant No. 1 became the absolute owner and in exclusive possession of the aforesaid renovated/rebuilt shop alogwith his son- defendant No.1; that the defendant No. 1 after coming back from Dubai requested Shri Hari Kishan Narural for execution of the sale documents, but he lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other, and ultimately refused to execute the sale documents on the plea that Suit No. 13/12 Page no. 2/6 defendant No. 1 came in exclusive possession being the owner, there was no question for any kind of worry for him, besides other allegations as made in the written statement.
4. It is further averred in the application that during the last week only, while clearing the old belongings of his deceased grand parents lying at A-33, New Multan Nagar, New Delhi, the plaintiff has been able to lay his hands on and found the passport of his deceased grandfather, namely Shri Hari Kishan Narula. It is further averred that a bare glance over the visas affixed on the said passport, besides, over the seals of immigration authorities, bearing date of his departure from India as 15-07-1997 and of his arrival to India as 13-11-1997, clearly establishes that he was not in India during the said period, thereby exposing the falsity of defence of defendants. The plaintiff has also submitted true and correct copy of the original passport of late Shri Hari Kishan Narula alongwith the list of documents with the present application. It is further averred that the plaintiff undertakes to produce the original passport as and when directed by the court.
5. It is further averred in the application that the said passport is thus a very vital piece of evidence, to conclusively establish and prove the falsity of defence of the defendants, to the extent to which, it is alleged in the written statement that the earnest money and / or the alleged remaining sale consideration in respect of the suit property was paid by the wife of the defendant no. 1 to lat Shri Hari Kishan Narula on the alleged dates.
6. It is further averred that the said passport was hitherto, not traceable and available with the plaintiff and has been found by the plaintiff only in the last week, and as such could not have been produced by the plaintiff, earlier.
Suit No. 13/12 Page no. 3/67. It is further averred that the original passport of late Shri Hari Kishan Narula is an official document issued by the Government of India and to avoid any technical objection, the plaintiff prayed in the application for grant of permission / leave to summon and examine the competent witness from the concerned department.
8. It is further averred that the plaintiff shall suffer irreparable loss and injury in case the said document is not permitted to be produced and proved in evidence of the plaintiff. It is prayed that the order be passed thereby granting leave to the plaintiff to produce and to prove in his evident, through the competent witness the passport of late Shir Hari Kishan Narula.
9. The application has been contested by defendants by filing their reply. In reply the defendants have taken preliminary objections that the application is liable to be dismissed for the lack of ingredients of order VII Rule 14 (3), Order XVI rule 1, Order XVIII Rule 17 read with section 151 CPC; that the concerned alleged passport was within the knowledge of the plaintiff at the time of filing of the present suit and the plaintiff even did not give the name of the concerned department in the list of witnesses and now at this stage he wants to summons the record of the passport of Shir Hari Kishan Narula just to fill the lacuna in his case; that it is the concocted story of the plaintiff that during the last week only while clearing the old belongings of his deceased grand parents the plaintiff found the passport of his grand father, as alleged.
10. On merits, it is submitted that the contents of para No. 1 of the application are matter of record. In reply to para No. 2 it is denied that the defendant has propagated a false and frivolous defence in his written statement as alleged. It is submitted that the contents Suit No. 13/12 Page no. 4/6 mentioned in the written statement are correct. It is submitted that the contents of para No. 2 of the application are correct.
11. The contents of para No. 3 of the application are denied and it is submitted that the applicant/plaintiff has not filed the original copy of the alleged passport of late Hari Kishan Narula as the same is forged, fabricated and manipulated.
12. The contents of para No. 4, 5 and 6 are denied. It is denied that the plaintiff shall suffer irreparable loss and injury in case the said document is not permitted to be produced and proved in his evidence as alleged. It is denied that no prejudice of any nature would be caused to the defendant as alleged. It is prayed that the application be dismissed with costs.
13. I have heard Ld. counsel for the parties and perused the records of the case.
14. The case is at the stage of plaintiff evidence. The plaintiff has moved the present application for bringing on record the passport of his deceased grand father Hari Kishan Narula evidencing that he was not in India between 15-07-1997 to 13-11-1997 so it was not possible for the wife of the defendant No. 1 to pay Rs. 34,000/- to late Sh. Hari Kishan Narula on 14-10-1997.
15. It is further the case of the plaintiff that while clearing the old belongings of his deceased grand parents lying at A-33 New Multan Nagar, Delhi he found the passport of his deceased grand father and only then he came to know that his grand father was not in India during the relevant period.
16. On the other hand, it is the case of the defendant that the passport was within the knowledge of the plaintiff at the time of filing of the suit and he has deliberately not given the name of the concerned Suit No. 13/12 Page no. 5/6 department in the list of witnesses and now the plaintiff wants to fill up the lacuna in the case. It is further urged by the defendant that the passport is a forged and fabricated document.
17. According to the defendant a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as earnest money was paid to late Sh. Hari Kishan Narula on 10-07-1997 and the balance of Rs. 34,000/- was paid on 14-10-1997. So in these circumstances, it has become necessary to allow the plaintiff to bring the passport of his deceased grand father on record because the date 14-10-1997, is a relevant date and on this date according to the plaintiff his grand father was out of country and according to the defendant a payment of Rs. 34,000/- was paid to the late grand father of the plaintiff on 14-10-1997. The objection of the defendant that the passport is a forged and fabricated document would be decided after the parties lead their evidence during the trial.
18. Therefore, in order to arrive at the root of the controversy the application is allowed and the plaintiff is directed to file the original passport in the Court on the next date of hearing and summon the witness from the concerned department to prove the same. No doubt inconvenience has been caused to the defendant but in my opinion, the same can be compensated in terms of cost. So a cost of Rs. 5000/- is imposed on the plaintiff. Now put up for entire PE on 12-05-2015. It is made clear that no further opportunity would be granted to the plaintiff for P.E. Announced in the open court (RAJNISH BHATNAGAR) On the 24.04.2015 Additional District Judge Delhi Suit No. 13/12 Page no. 6/6