Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Vivek Malhotra vs Jyotsna Malhotra on 3 August, 2013

                                            1




               VIVEK MALHOTRA V/s JYOTSNA MALHOTRA

                                                                     HMA No. 351/12

03.08.2013

ORDER ON THE APPLICATION U/O 7 RULE 14 CPC:­




1.            By this Order, I shall dispose off an application U/O 7 Rule 14 

CPC for production of additional documents.   The applicant/petitioner in 

this matrimonial case filed for restitution of conjugal rights has stated herein 

that   he   wants   to   produce   a   CD   containing   conversation   between   the 

petitioner and the elder sister of the respondent, alleged to have been held 

on 08.04.2012 telephonically, wherein there was a demand from the side of the respondent for a separate accommodation. The conversation is alleged to have been recorded on mobile phone and the petitioner/applicant states that he can produce the mobile phone itself directly before the Court. The conversation is now in the form of a CD, the transcript of which has been filed.

2. The petitioner/applicant claims that the said conversation is highly relevant to show the conduct of the respondent, and that he could 2 not file it earlier, as he was under the impression, that respondent would join his company, after reconciliation in Court, but when the respondent refused to join, now the petitioner/applicant wants to produce this evidence.

3. Ld. Counsel for respondent/non­applicant opted not to file any reply, but he strongly opposed the same, firstly on the ground of the entire length of the delay in filing of the application, since the alleged conversation was admittedly already available with the petitioner/applicant way back in the year 2010.

4. Arguments were heard.

5. I have gone through the transcript of the conversation, and no doubt if proved to be correct, it would throw much light on the controversy involved between the parties.

6. Though the same has not been supported by any affidavit U/S 65­B of Indian Evidence Act in the electric form, that would be a matter to be dealt with at the time of proving of the said document.

7. For the time being, it is sufficient to hold that in the interest of justice, application filed U/O 7 Rule 14 CPC, for filing of additional document i.e. CD and Transcript, stands allowed subject to cost of Rs. 2000/­ payable to the respondent.

Needless to state that the documents would require to be proved as per the provisions of Indian Evidence Act at the appropriate stage.

Application disposed off.

ANNOUNCED IN THE OEPN COURT                           (SUJATA KOHLI)
TODAY i.e. ON 3RD  AUGUST 2013                        ADJ:WEST:THC
                                                      03.08.2013