Delhi District Court
Smt. Meenakashi Gupta vs . M/S Nandram Sudershan Kumar on 29 January, 2014
IN THE COURT OF MS. RACHNA TIWARI LAKHANPAL
SCJ/RC(WEST), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
C.S No. 211/2008
Smt. Meenakashi Gupta Vs. M/s Nandram Sudershan Kumar
Date of institution of the application : 29.07.2013
Date of reserving order : 22.01.2014
Date of pronouncement : 29.01.2014
ORDER
1. Vide this order, I shall dispose off an application under Order 18 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC filed by the defendant no. 2.
2. It is submitted in the application that abovesaid case is pending before this court and during pendency of trial of the case, the Suit no. 211/08 Page No. 1/4 defendant had filed an intact and sealed returned envelope of registered post containing his appearance, which was sent by the defendant no.2 to the address of the plaintiff as given in the plaint. The said returned envelope Ex. DW1/1 has endorsement of postal document to the effect that the same was not delivered as the addressee was not residing there. This envelope was filed and considered in the orders while granting leave to defend to the defendants. It is further submitted that on 16.05.13, while leading the DE, it was observed by the defendant no. 2 that the said returned envelope was torn and the contents thereof were removed from the court record. The document was torn with malafide objects to discredit the evidence against the plaintiff. The said document i.e returned registered envelope containing the appearance, is a material evidence to show that the plaintiff was not residing at the address of the plaint when the suit was filed. It is also submitted by the defendant no. 2 that the plaintiff has inspected the file several times and plaintiff is a beneficiary of torn of the said document and interference could be easily drawn against her. It is prayed that this court may initiate appropriate proceedings to enquire the fact as to who has torn the returned registered Suit no. 211/08 Page No. 2/4 envelope and hold that the torn condition of the returned envelope has no bearing in proving it as DW1/1. It is further prayed that liberty be grant to the defendant to prove the postal receipt of the returned envelope by summoning and examining the witnesses from postal department.
3. In reply to this application, it is submitted that this application has been filed just to delay the trial. It is further submitted by the plaintiff that the defendant has cast aspersions on the staff of this court.
4. I have heard the arguments as well as perused the record.
5. The present case has been filed under Order 37 CPC, wherein leave to defend application was allowed. As per the submissions of the defendant no. 2 himself, the Ex. DW1/1 is the returned envelope containing his appearance. In my considered opinion, the issue of sending the appearance to the plaintiff was relevant till disposal of leave to defend application. If the plaintiff has inspected the file many times, it Suit no. 211/08 Page No. 3/4 cannot be concluded at all that the plaintiff has torn the envelope. The plaintiff cannot be beneficiary as leave to defend application has already been allowed in favour of the defendant. However, perusal of the envelope shows that remark is postal department employees is still there and therefore, in my considered opinion, if the defendant no. 2 thinks that this remark is of any benefit for him, then, he is at liberty to prove the dispatching and returning of this envelope as per law. This torn envelope will not be having any effect on the fact of dispatching and returning of envelope subject to the condition that the defendant no. 2 chooses to prove the same. However, I find no ground to initiate any proceedings against anyone. The application is partly allowed. The application stands disposed of accordingly.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (RACHNA TIWARI LAKHANPAL)
COURT ON 29.01.14 SCJ/RC(WEST)/ DELHI
Suit no. 211/08 Page No. 4/4