Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court

Rajesh Sachdeva vs Rakesh Kumar Sachdeva on 23 August, 2016

Author: Hima Kohli

Bench: Hima Kohli

$~12 (Chamber Appeal)
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+     CS(OS) 654/2014
      RAJESH SACHDEVA                           ..... Plaintiff
                   Through Mr. Ankit Jain, Advocate along with
                          Plaintiff in person

                          versus

      RAKESH KUMAR SACHDEVA                   ..... Defendant
                  Through Mr. Y D Nagar, Advocate

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

                          ORDER

% 23.08.2016 OA No. 315/2015

1. The present Chamber Appeal has been filed by the defendant against the order dated 4th August, 2015, passed by the learned Joint Registrar.

2. The defendant is aggrieved by the order dated 4th August, 2015 passed on an application filed by him under Order 7, Rule 14 CPC for directions to remove the documents filed by the plaintiff on 9th August, 2014, in IA No. 12338/2015.

3. Vide order dated 4th August, 2015, the learned Joint Registrar had dismissed the aforesaid application with an observation that on 21st May, 2014, the parties were granted permission to file the original documents and the matter was adjourned to 16th September, 2014, for admission/denial of the documents. After the aforesaid order, the plaintiff had filed additional CS(OS) 654/2014 Page 1 of 6 documents in the month of August, 2014. Subsequently, the plaintiff had filed IA No. 18550/2014 under Order 7, Rule 14 CPC, for permission to take on record the said documents.

4. On 16th September, 2014, the parties had conducted admission/denial of documents which included the documents filed by the plaintiff in the month of August, 2014. At that stage, learned counsel for the defendant had not raised any objection to the effect that the plaintiff had filed additional documents belatedly. In fact, on 15th December, 2014, the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC was disposed of as not pressed with an observation that the documents had been filed by the plaintiff along with the replication in terms of the order dated 21st May, 2014. Pertinently, learned counsel for the defendant was present when the said order was passed.

5. Learned Joint Registrar had observed in the impugned order that the defendant will have ample opportunity to rebut the documents filed by the plaintiff on 29th August, 2014, in the course of the trial and he can impeach the said documents during the evidence of the plaintiff or can even challenge the authenticity of the said documents at a later stage. Hence, no prejudice was caused to the defendant if the documents of the plaintiff were taken on record. As a result, IA No. 12338/2015 was dismissed. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the defendant has filed the present Chamber Appeal.

6. Mr. Y D Nagar, learned counsel for the defendant submits that the provisions of Order 7, Rule 14 CPC contemplates that the documents required in the suit must be filed with the plaint with an idea that the defendant will get an opportunity to examine the said documents and CS(OS) 654/2014 Page 2 of 6 respond thereto in the written statement. He states that only after the written statement came to be filed by the defendant, did the plaintiff file the additional documents on 5th September, 2014, thus, depriving the defendant of an opportunity to deal with the said documents.

7. To substantiate his submissions that the plaintiff could not have been permitted to file the documents after the written statement came to be filed by the defendant, learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment in the case of Asia Pacific Breweries Vs. Superior Industries, APSI, reported as 158 (2009) DLT 670.

8. Learned counsel for the plaintiff opposes the present Chamber Appeal and submits that the defendant was all along aware of the fact that vide order dated 21st May, 2014, liberty was granted to both the parties to file their documents and the case was adjourned to 14th September, 2010 for admission/denial of the documents. He submits that only thereafter, did the plaintiff file the documents in question with a copy to the other side. Not only that, counsel for the defendant had proceeded to conduct admission/denial of the said documents without any protest, as would be apparent from a perusal of order dated 14th September, 2016, passed by the learned Joint Registrar,

9. He submits that issues were framed in the suit much later, on 19th August, 2015 and if the defendant really had any grievance in respect of the documents filed by the plaintiff, he had all the opportunity to request the court to have an issue framed in respect of the said documents.

10. The Court has heard the counsel for the parties and carefully perused the impugned order dated 4th August, 2015, passed by the learned Joint Registrar.

11. The impugned order has clearly recorded that the suit was at the initial stages and issues had not been framed. Further, on 25th January, 2014, the parties had been granted time to file the original documents and the case was adjourned to 14th September, 2010, for admission/denial of documents.

12. On 16th September, 2014, admission/denial of documents had been conducted by the counsels for the parties and at that stage, the defendant's counsel had not raised any objection with regard to belated filing of documents by the plaintiff. In fact he had proceeded to conduct admission/ denial of the documents filed by the plaintiff without any demur. Subsequently, an application filed by the plaintiff under Order VII Rule 14 CPC, being IA No. 18553/2014 asking for permission to file the additional documents was disposed of vide order dated 15th December, 2014, as it was noted that documents had already been filed by the plaintiff in terms of the order dated 21st May, 2014. Counsel for the defendant was present when the said order was passed but he did not raise a protest.

13. The contention of the learned counsel for the defendant that his client has been deprived of an opportunity to rebut the additional documents filed by the plaintiff was duly considered by the learned Joint Registrar who has rightly observed that the defendant would have ample opportunity to rebut the said documents, during the course of the trial, either by the cross- examining the plaintiff's witnesses or by producing his own witnesses for questioning the authenticity of the said documents.

14. This Court is of the opinion that reliance placed by learned counsel for the defendant on the decision in the case of Asia Pacific Breweries (Supra) to oppose filing of additional documents by the plaintiff, is misplaced for the simple reason that in the said case, an application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC was filed by the plaintiff therein, seeking permission to file as many as seventy additional documents and that too, at the stage of the trial of the suit. The said permission was declined by the learned Single Judge who had observed that whole purpose of the provision of Order 7 Rule 14 CPC would stands defeated if a majority of the documents are withheld, by either of the parties.

15. In the present case, pleadings had not even been completed when the plaintiff had filed the additional documents. In fact, issues were framed much later, on 19th August, 2015. The said documents have already been admitted/denied by the defendant. If the defendant has a grievance regarding the additional documents filed by the plaintiff, it is open to him to have an additional issue framed with respect to the said documents.

16. In the course of arguments, learned counsel for the defendant has submitted that no issue has been framed by the Court to establish the ownership of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property. To the contrary, the very first issue framed on 19.08.2005, is as follow:-

"(i) Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property ?"

The onus to prove the said issue has been placed on the plaintiff.

17. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that there is no illegality, arbitrariness or perversity in the order dated 4th August, 2015 passed by the learned Joint Registrar, for interference. Accordingly, the Chamber Appeal is dismissed with cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid to the counsel for the plaintiff within two weeks.

HIMA KOHLI, J AUGUST 23, 2016 P/rkb/ap CS(OS) 654/2014 Page 6 of 6