Delhi High Court
Nishant Hannan & Ors. vs South Delhi Municipal Coporation on 8 August, 2014
Author: Valmiki J.Mehta
Bench: Valmiki J.Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M) No. 262/2014
% 8th August , 2014
NISHANT HANNAN & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Adv.
versus
SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL COPORATION ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Neeraj Singh and Mr. Pushpendra
Shukla, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. The challenge by means of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the impugned order of the trial court dated 10.1.2014 which has dismissed an application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for filing additional documents. CM(M) 262/2014 Page 1 of 3
2. The subject suit is a suit for mandatory injunction whereby petitioners/plaintiffs seek mutation of their names in the record of the respondent.
3. The subject application for additional documents was filed when the plaintiff's evidence was going on, and the documents which are sought to be produced are the house-tax bills etc which are issued by the respondent itself upon the predecessor -in- interest of the petitioners/plaintiffs. The documents are therefore really unimpeachable documents. Supreme Court in the case of Billa Jagan Mohan Reddy & Anr. Vs. Billa Sanjeeva Reddy & Ors. (1994) 4 SCC 659 has held that if the documents are unimpeachable documents, the same can be led in evidence even at the stage of final arguments.
4. In view of the above, I find that the impugned order suffers from gross illegality and perversity in disallowing the petitioners/plaintiffs from filing additional documents by dismissing the application of the petitioners/plaintiffs.
5. It may also be reiterated that CPC is a handmaid of justice and parties do make mistakes in the conduct of their cases. Therefore mistakes are allowed to be corrected unless there is a grave prejudice to the other side. CM(M) 262/2014 Page 2 of 3
6. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside. Petitioners/plaintiffs will be entitled to file the additional documents which were sought to be filed in terms of the subject application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC and thereafter prove the same in accordance with law. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
AUGUST 08, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
CM(M) 262/2014 Page 3 of 3