Delhi District Court
Sh. Mahender Singh vs Smt. Kamla Devi on 10 July, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. ARUN KUMAR GARG: CIVIL JUDGE:
SOUTH WEST DISTRICT: DWARKA COURT: NEW DELHI
C.S No: 510/13
Unique case ID No: 02405C0088352013
IN THE MATTER OF
Sh. Mahender Singh
S/o Late Sh. Dhan Singh,
R/o H. No. 298, Sector 10,
District Gurgaon, Haryana ... Plaintiff
Versus
1. Smt. Kamla Devi
W/o Sh. Shyam Lal Rajora
R/o RZ 73, Old Roshan Pura,
Najafgarh, New Delhi 110043
2. Smt. Urmil @ Vimal,
W/o Sh. Om Prakash Rajora,
House no. 857/5, Gali no. 5
Patel Nagar, District Gurgaon,
Haryana
3. Sh. Naresh Kumar,
S/o Late Sh. Dhan Singh,
R/o H. No. 475, Sector 15,
Part I, District Gurgaon,
Haryana
CS No. 510/13
Mahender Singh Vs. Kamla Devi & Ors.
Order dated 10.07.2015 Page no. 1 of 26
4. Sh. Ritesh Kumar,
S/o Late Sh. Luxmi Narayan,
R/o Kajiwara Chowk, Main Bazar,
Village & PO Badli,
District Jhajjar, Haryana,
5. Sh. Vikas Kumar,
S/o Late Sh. Luxmi Narayan,
R/o Kajiwara Chowk, Main Bazar,
Village & PO Badli,
District Jhajjar, Haryana, ... Defendants
ORDER
1. By this order, I will decide the application of the defendant under Order 8 Rule 1A (3) read with Section 151 CPC seeking permission of the court to file the photocopies of certain documents which have not been filed by the defendants at the time of filing of the written statement.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present application are as follows: The suit has been filed by the plaintiff Sh. Mahender Singh in this court against his two sisters who are defendant nos. 1 & 2, his brother who is defendant no. 3 and his brother's CS No. 510/13 Mahender Singh Vs. Kamla Devi & Ors.
Order dated 10.07.2015 Page no. 2 of 26
sons who are defendant nos. 4 & 5 respectively. Case of
plaintiff as per plaint is that he is the sole owner and in possession of the suit property measuring 300 sq. yds. situated at New Gopal Nagar Extension C Block, Nanak Piau II, Dhansa Road, Najafgarh, New Delhi 110043. According to him, the aforesaid property was purchased by his mother Late Smt. Shanti Devi in the year 199091 by joint family funds and the same was partitioned by her during her life time in the year 2005 in the presence of plaintiff and the defendants and the suit property was acquired by the plaintiff in that family partition and the other legal heirs were allotted other properties. Thus, according to him, he has become the owner of the suit property and occasionally operates his business of sale of bricks from the suit plot since very long. According to him, on 20.02.2013 and 27.02.2013, defendants came to the suit property and tried to forcibly dispossess the plaintiff from the same. According to him, he is apprehending not only illegal dispossession by the CS No. 510/13 Mahender Singh Vs. Kamla Devi & Ors.
Order dated 10.07.2015 Page no. 3 of 26 defendants but also the alienation of the suit property by the defendants. Thus, the plaintiff has filed the present suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in his peaceful possession or forcibly dispossessing him from the suit property and also for restraining them from selling/ alienating the suit land and from changing the nature of the suit property. Plaintiff did not file any document either in support of his ownership or in support of his possession over the suit property, which on a bare perusal of the photographs annexed by the plaintiff appears to be a vacant plot.
3. The defendants appeared in response to the summons of the suit and filed their written statement on 29.05.2013. In their joint written statement, all the defendants have taken a stand that the suit plot was purchased by Smt. Shanti Devi, widow of Sh. Dhan Singh in the year 1990 after giving the consideration amount from her hard earned money. According to them, the suit property is selfacquired property of deceased Smt. Shanti CS No. 510/13 Mahender Singh Vs. Kamla Devi & Ors.
Order dated 10.07.2015 Page no. 4 of 26 Devi and before her death, she had executed a Will in respect of same in favour of her two daughters, who are defendant nos. 1 & 2 in the present suit, on 04.08.2009 within the knowledge of all the family members including the plaintiff. Thus, according to them, the defendant nos. 1 & 2 have become the owners and in possession of the suit property and plaintiff is neither the owner nor in possession of the same. They have thus prayed for dismissal of the present suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants. The defendants did not file any documents in support of their title or possession over the suit property.
4. Replication to the aforesaid written statement was filed on behalf of the plaintiff wherein plaintiff has taken a stand that the mother of plaintiff had never executed any Will in favour of defendant nos. 1 & 2 during her life time and the defendants have fabricated the alleged Will, if any, alongwith certain other documents with regard to properties of other persons. All the contrary averments made by the defendants in their written CS No. 510/13 Mahender Singh Vs. Kamla Devi & Ors.
Order dated 10.07.2015 Page no. 5 of 26 statement were denied by the plaintiff in his replication and the corresponding averments made by the plaintiff in his plaint were reiterated by him once again.
5. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for consideration on the application of the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC. In the meantime, certain documents were placed on record by counsel for defendants on 05.05.2014 and 27.05.2014. Counsel for plaintiff has objected to the taking on record the aforesaid documents on the ground that the defendants have failed to take the leave of the court to file the aforesaid documents at a belated stage. Thereafter, the present application was moved on behalf of the defendants under order 8 Rule 1A (3) read with Section 151 CPC seeking permission to take the aforesaid documents on record. It is submitted on behalf of the defendants in the aforesaid application that the defendants could not file the aforesaid documents in time as they were hard pressed to file the written statement within the prescribed CS No. 510/13 Mahender Singh Vs. Kamla Devi & Ors.
Order dated 10.07.2015 Page no. 6 of 26 period of limitation of thirty days and the said documents could not be arranged by the defendants for filing in the court within such a short period of time.
6. Reply to the aforesaid application of the defendants was filed on behalf of the plaintiff on 01.09.2014 wherein the plaintiff has objected to taking of aforesaid documents on record on the ground that the copy of the GPA, Agreement to Sell, affidavit and receipt all dated 18.01.1990 in favour of Smt. Shanti Devi may not be taken on record since the same do not convey any title in favour of Lat Smt. Shanti Devi. Thus, according to them, since Smt. Shanti Devi had not become the owner of the suit property on the basis of aforesaid documents, she could not have executed the alleged Will in favour of defendant nos. 1 &
2. According to the plaintiff, the photocopy of the alleged Will of Late Smt. Shanti Devi is false, fabricated and not admitted by the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, the Will being unregistered, the same becomes suspicious. Besides, according CS No. 510/13 Mahender Singh Vs. Kamla Devi & Ors.
Order dated 10.07.2015 Page no. 7 of 26 to him, the defendants have not obtained the probate of the said will within the time prescribed by law and as such it does not confer any title on defendant nos. 1 & 2. Thus, according to him, the alleged GPA, Agreement to Sell, affidavit and receipt in favour of Smt. Shanti Devi cannot be looked into by the court in view of Section 17 and 49 of Registration Act, Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act and Section 35 read with Article 26A of Indian Stamp Act. Moreover, according to him, the alleged Will in favour of defendant nos. 1 & 2 is not only forged and fabricated but the same is wholly irrelevant and Order 13 Rule 3 mandates the court to reject the documents at any stage if the court considers the same to be irrelevant or otherwise inadmissible.
7. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon the following judgments in support of his aforesaid submissions:
i. Arun Kumar Tandon Vs. M/s Akash Telecom Private Limited & Anr. in C.M. (Main) No. 1371 of 2008 & CS No. 510/13 Mahender Singh Vs. Kamla Devi & Ors.
Order dated 10.07.2015 Page no. 8 of 26 C.M. Appeal No. 17532 of 2008 ii. Bipin Shantilal Panchal Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr. in (2002)10 SCC 529. iii. Sh. Ripu Daman Haryal & Anr. Vs. Miss Geeta Chopra & Anr. in CS (OS) No. 297/2009 iv. Smt. Indu Gulani @ Indu Pahuja & Anr. Vs. Sh. Sant
Pal Singh in CRP No. 145/2014 & C.M. No. 16106/2014 (Exemption), 16107/2014 (Stay).
v. K.S. Babu @ Seethakayala Babu Vs. Sadhika Basha & 7 Others in Civil Revision Petition No. 941 of 2013 vi. R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder Vs. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. in Appeal (Civil) 10585 of 1996.
vii. Popatlal Devram Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax in 1970 77 ITR 1013 Orissa.
Viii. Budhia Mandal and Ors. Vs. Raghu Mandal & Ors. in AIR 1973 Ori 85 ix. Kavita Gambhir Vs. Hari Chand Gambhir & Anr. in RFA No. 179 of 2008 decided on 07.09.2009 x. Jayaram Banan and Anr. Vs. Anand Prakash Gupta and Ors. in C.M (Main) No. 95 of 2010 & C.M. Appl. Nos. 14531454 of 2010.
CS No. 510/13 Mahender Singh Vs. Kamla Devi & Ors.
Order dated 10.07.2015 Page no. 9 of 26
xi. Col. (Retd.) Dalip Singh Sachar Vs. Major General
(Retd.) Praboth in II (2007)BC 453, 141 (2007) DLT 209 xii. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Smt. P. Laxmi Devi in Appeal (Civil) 8270 of 2001 decided on 25.02.2008.
8. He has further relied upon the following circulars issued by the Department of Revenue, Government of NCT of Delhi:
i. Circular dated 26.02.2015 from the office of Inspector General of Registration, Department of Revenue, Government of NCT of Delhi.
ii. Rates of Stamp Duty applicable to Delhi - downloaded from Internet.
iii. Circular dated 22.07.2013 Divisional Commissioner of Stamp and Registration, Branch, Department of Revenue, Government of NCT of Delhi obtained by counsel for plaintiff through RTI.
9. I have heard the submissions made on behalf of the parties and have perused the record. I have also carefully gone through the judgments and circulars relied upon by learned counsel for CS No. 510/13 Mahender Singh Vs. Kamla Devi & Ors.
Order dated 10.07.2015 Page no. 10 of 26 plaintiff in support of his submissions. A bare perusal of the provisions of Order 13 Rule 3 CPC shows that the same gives an enabling power to the court to reject any document at any stage of the suit which the court considers irrelevant or otherwise inadmissible, after recording the grounds of such rejection. The aforesaid provision is not mandatory but directory and the court has been the discretionary power either to accept or to reject the documents if the same are considered by the court irrelevant, though there can be no dispute that the aforesaid discretion has to be exercised by the court judiciously.
10. At the outset, I would like to refer to judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Haryana Financial Corporation Vs. Jagdamba Oil Mills 2002 (3) SCC 496 which has been relied upon by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Sh. Ripu Daman Haryal & Anr. Vs. Miss Geeta Chopra & Anr. CS(OS) No. 297/2009. The later judgment has been relied upon by learned counsel for plaintiff in support of his submissions. It has been laid down by Hon'ble CS No. 510/13 Mahender Singh Vs. Kamla Devi & Ors.
Order dated 10.07.2015 Page no. 11 of 26 Supreme Court in the aforesaid case that while applying the law laid down in the judgment of the Apex Court to the facts of a particular case, the facts of the said reported judgment must be seen and corelated to the facts of the case to which the judgment is sought to be applied. Seen in this background, in my considered opinion, almost all the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for plaintiff are the judgments which do not apply to the facts of the present case.
11. On the bare perusal of the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Arun Kumar Tandon Vs. M/s Akash Telecom Private Limited & Anr. (supra) shows that in the aforesaid case the Hon'ble High Court was dealing with Civil Miscellaneous (Main) filed by the petitioner against an order passed by Ld. Additional District Judge denying the right of the petitioner to receive rent under Order 39 Rule 10 CPC on the ground of Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act observing that the benefits of provisions of Section 53A can be derived by the CS No. 510/13 Mahender Singh Vs. Kamla Devi & Ors.
Order dated 10.07.2015 Page no. 12 of 26 respondent in view of alleged agreement cum receipt where it was specifically mentioned that respondent shall continue to retain possession. Ld. Additional District Judge has further held that the possession of the respondent cannot be said to be unauthorized and the documents cannot be ignored more so when a suit for specific performance was pending. In the aforesaid case, the petitioner being the owner of suit property had let out a flat to the respondent by way of written agreement dated 10.05.2003 for a period of 11 months. Since the defendant failed to vacate the tenanted premises, suit for possession was accordingly filed by the petitioner against the defendants under the aforesaid rent agreement and an application was simultaneously filed under Order 39 Rule 10 CPC seeking court's directions for defendant to pay the arrears of rent. As per the defence taken by the defendant, after the expiry of aforesaid period of 11 months since the petitioner could not refund the security amount of Rs. 39,000/ paid by the CS No. 510/13 Mahender Singh Vs. Kamla Devi & Ors.
Order dated 10.07.2015 Page no. 13 of 26 tenant, an agreement to sell was executed by the petitioner with the defendant no. 2 for a consideration of Rs. 35 lakhs out of which the petitioner received a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/ as part consideration and permitted the respondent to continue to hold the possession of the suit property till the deal was finalized. The application was contested by defendants while relying upon the alleged agreement to sell dated 25.04.2004. Ld. Additional District Judge declined the relief under Order 39 Rule 10 CPC on the ground that the defendant was in possession in part performance of the aforesaid agreement to sell in terms of Section 53A of the Transfer of the Property Act and hence the petitioner was not entitled to receive rent under Order 39 Rule 10 CPC.
12. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the order was challenged by the petitioner before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court had allowed the petition observing that in order to obtain the benefit of Section CS No. 510/13 Mahender Singh Vs. Kamla Devi & Ors.
Order dated 10.07.2015 Page no. 14 of 26 53A of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, it was incumbent upon the respondent to get the agreement to sell registered in view of provisions of Section 17 (1) (A) of the Registration Act as amended with effect from 01.07.2002 and since the same was not registered, the court should not have looked into/ relied upon the same while deciding the application under Order 39 Rule 10 CPC.
13. In the present case, the alleged agreement to sell is not relied upon by the defendant for the purposes of Section 53A of the Transfer of the Property Act and as such the same is not required to be registered. Moreover the same has been executed on 18.01.1990 i.e. much prior to coming into force of Section 17 (1A) of the Registration Act which has been brought to the statute book only with effect from 01.07.2002.
14. Similarly in Bipin Shantilal Panchal Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr. (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with a petition against an order deciding the objection raised by one of the CS No. 510/13 Mahender Singh Vs. Kamla Devi & Ors.
Order dated 10.07.2015 Page no. 15 of 26 parties during cross examination of witnesses as to the mode of proof of document and while dealing with the aforesaid situation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that if the objection relates to deficiency of stamp duty of a document, the court has to decide the objection before proceeding further. For all other objections, it has been held that the court can make a note of such objection and mark the objected documents tentatively as an exhibit in the case and such objections are to be decided at the stage of final arguments. In the present case, this court is not dealing with the objections raised by the plaintiff at the time of tendering of any of the documents in evidence and as such the aforesaid observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bipin Shantilal Panchal Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr. (supra) do not apply to the facts of the present case.
15. In Sh. Ripu Daman Haryal & Anr. Vs. Miss Geeta Chopra & Anr.(supra), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court was dealing with a CS No. 510/13 Mahender Singh Vs. Kamla Devi & Ors.
Order dated 10.07.2015 Page no. 16 of 26 suit filed by the plaintiffs for declaration of their title over the suit property on the basis of agreement to sell, receipt, Will and GPA all dated 11.06.1996 and under the aforesaid circumstances, it was observed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court that the aforesaid documents do not convey any title in favour of the plaintiff and as such the plaintiff may not be deemed to be owners of the suit property on the basis of aforesaid documents since the agreement to sell was not registered and the Will was not probated. In the present case, the defendants are not relying on the aforesaid documents nor seeking a declaration from the court as to their ownership of the suit property. Moreover, in view of several authoritative pronouncement of Hon'ble Delhi High Court, the Will in Delhi is not required to be probated and the defendants can set up a Will in defence of a suit filed by the plaintiff claiming himself to be owner of the suit property even, if the same is not probated. To name a few of such judgment are - Winifred Nora Theophilus Vs. Lila Deane and Ors. 2001 CS No. 510/13 Mahender Singh Vs. Kamla Devi & Ors.
Order dated 10.07.2015 Page no. 17 of 26 (60) DRJ 422 and Rajan Suri and Anr. Vs. State and Anr. AIR 2006 Del 148. Thus the observations made by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the aforesaid case are also not applicable to the facts of the present case.
16. Similar is the case with the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in V. Anand Prakash Gupta & Anr. case (supra). In the aforesaid case, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court was dealing with a situation where one of the codefendants had taken a stand in his written statement that no partnership deed had been executed between the plaintiff and the defendants at any point of time, however, subsequently, during his cross examination by another codefendant in the suit, he has sought to produce the copy of partnership deed. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court had made the aforesaid observations that the defendants cannot sneak the documents through back door if the list of documents was not filed alongwith written statement in as much as the court has held CS No. 510/13 Mahender Singh Vs. Kamla Devi & Ors.
Order dated 10.07.2015 Page no. 18 of 26 that both the defendants were in league with each other and the documents sought to be placed on record by one of the defendants was prima facie forged and fabricated in view of defence taken by him in his written statement.
17. Now coming to the next case reported as Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Smt. P. Laxmi Devi's case (supra) wherein it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that when a document is produced before a person who is authorized to receive evidence and a person who is incharge of public office (except a police officer) before him an instrument chargeable with the stamp duty is produced or comes in the performance of his function, it is the duty of such person before whom, the said document is produced to impound the document if it is not duly stamped. There is no discretion in the authority to impound the documents or not. In other words, it is mandatory to impound documents produced before him or which comes before him in performance of his function. There CS No. 510/13 Mahender Singh Vs. Kamla Devi & Ors.
Order dated 10.07.2015 Page no. 19 of 26 can be no dispute about the aforesaid proposition of law in view of mandatory provisions of Section 33 of Indian Stamp Act. However, the aforesaid observations were made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case while dealing with the issue of payment of stamp duty on a sale deed. In the case in hand, the defendants have relied upon the GPA, agreement to sell, affidavit and receipt all dated 18.01.1990 in favour of Late Smt. Shanti Devi. None of the aforesaid documents is a sale deed. Even the GPA dated 18.01.2010 is not covered by entry no. 23 or entry no. 48 in the schedule appended to the Indian Stamp Act in as much as no consideration amount is mentioned in the aforesaid GPA. Thus the same cannot be taken to be as conveyance deed in terms of Clause 23A of schedule appended to the Indian Stamp Act as alleged by learned counsel for plaintiff. Similarly as has already been observed an agreement to sell does not require registration nor does it require the payment of Stamp Duty more than what has been paid on the CS No. 510/13 Mahender Singh Vs. Kamla Devi & Ors.
Order dated 10.07.2015 Page no. 20 of 26 same since the same was executed way back on 18.01.1990 i.e. much prior to the coming into force of amended provision of Section 17 (1A) of the Registration Act in the year 2002. Even as per the amended Section 17 (1A), the registration of agreement to sell is required only if the same is being relied upon by a party for the purposes of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. Similarly, requisite stamp duty seems to have been paid on the affidavit also. The Will purportedly executed by Late Smt. Shanti Devi in favour of defendant nos. 1 & 2 also does not require compulsory registration. Moreover, no stamp duty is required to be paid on Will.
18. The circulars issued by the Revenue Department, Government of NCT of Delhi cannot have the effect of amending the law which is there in the Indian Stamp Act and the Registration Act. Since, it has already been held by this court that there is no deficiency in the stamp duty paid on the documents sought to be relied upon by the defendants in support of their case, the CS No. 510/13 Mahender Singh Vs. Kamla Devi & Ors.
Order dated 10.07.2015 Page no. 21 of 26 same are not required to be impounded by this court nor the same can be said to be inadmissible or irrelevant. Thus, there is no need to discuss the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Col. (Retd.) Dalip Singh Sachar Vs. Major General (Retd.) Praboth (supra) and Smt. Indu Gulani @ Indu Pahuja & Anr. Vs. Sh. Sant Pal Singh (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for plaintiff in as much as though the aforesaid judgments deal with the duty of the court of impounding the documents, however, it has already been held that as per their tenor, none of the documents sought to be placed on record by the plaintiff is deficiently stamped nor does any such document requires registration. For the same reasons, the judgment of Hon'ble Andha Pradesh High Court in K.S. Babu @ Seethakayala Babu Vs. Sadhika Basha & 7 Others (supra) does not require any discussion. R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder Vs. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. (supra) also does not assist the case of CS No. 510/13 Mahender Singh Vs. Kamla Devi & Ors.
Order dated 10.07.2015 Page no. 22 of 26 the plaintiff on the same reasoning which has been given by this court while dealing with the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Sh. Ripu Daman Haryal & Anr. Vs. Miss Geeta Chopra & Anr. (supra) since the facts of the said case were entirely different from the facts of the present case. The remaining three judgments passed by Hon'ble Orissa High Court and Hon'ble Delhi High Court regarding joint family property and partition do not have any relevance in adjudication of the present application under Order 8 Rule 1A (3) CPC.
19. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, in my considered opinion, none of the documents sought to be placed on record by the defendants is either insufficiently stamped or the same requires registration and as such there is no bar to the admissibility of the aforesaid documents.
20. It is pertinent to note at this stage that in the plaint, the plaintiff himself has alleged that suit property was purchased by the mother of the plaintiff Smt. Shanti Devi in the year 199091 by CS No. 510/13 Mahender Singh Vs. Kamla Devi & Ors.
Order dated 10.07.2015 Page no. 23 of 26 joint family funds, however, the plaintiff has failed to place on record any documents in support of his aforesaid averments and when the defendants have placed on record the aforesaid documents in favour of Late Smt. Shanti Devi executed in the year 1990, the plaintiff has taken a wholly contradictory stand in his reply to the application of the defendant under Order 8 Rule 1A (3) that the aforesaid document do not establish any title to the suit property in favour of Late Smt. Shanti Devi and in the absence of any title, Late Smt. Shanti Devi could not have executed any Will whatsoever in favour of the defendants. The aforesaid stand taken by the plaintiff in his reply to the application of the defendants is diametrically opposite to the stand taken by him in the plaint whereby he has admitted the ownership of Late Smt. Shanti Devi though, according to him, the suit property was purchased by Smt. Shanti Devi out of the joint family funds. On the other hand, the case of the defendants is that the said property was acquired by Smt. Shanti CS No. 510/13 Mahender Singh Vs. Kamla Devi & Ors.
Order dated 10.07.2015 Page no. 24 of 26 Devi out of her own funds and as such the same was self acquired property of Late Smt. Shanti Devi. Be that as it may, the court is not concerned at this stage as to the legal effect of the aforesaid documents in as much as in view of the aforesaid discussions, the same cannot be said to be either irrelevant or inadmissible at this stage. No doubt, the defendants were required to file the same alongwith their written statement, however, merely because the defendants have failed to file the same alongwith written statement, there is no bar for the court to take the same on record if the defendants have sought to file the same before the issues are settled in the present case. In my considered opinion, the aforesaid documents are required in the present case for appropriate adjudication of the real dispute between the parties more particularly in view of the fact that plaintiff has failed to place on record any documents in support of submissions made by him in his plaint.
21. The application moved on behalf of the defendants under Order CS No. 510/13 Mahender Singh Vs. Kamla Devi & Ors.
Order dated 10.07.2015 Page no. 25 of 26 8 Rule 1A (3) CPC is accordingly allowed. The documents filed by the defendants on 05.05.2014 and 27.05.2014 are taken on record. The application is accordingly disposed off.
22. Ordered accordingly.
Announced in the open court on this 10th day of July, 2015 This order consists of twenty six signed pages.
(Arun Kumar Garg) Civil Judge(SW)/Dwarka Courts New Delhi/10.07.2015 (akn) CS No. 510/13 Mahender Singh Vs. Kamla Devi & Ors.
Order dated 10.07.2015 Page no. 26 of 26