Delhi District Court
Courts vs Ajay Kapoor & Anr. Page 1 Of 4 on 5 July, 2012
//1//
IN THE COURT OF SH. PRITAM SINGH, ARC (CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI
COURTS, DELHI.
E-108/09
05.07.2012
Mohd. Islam Khan
Vs.
Ajay Kapoor & Anr.
ORDER
By this order, I shall decide an application u/o 7 rule 14 r/w section 151 CPC filed on behalf of the petitioner. It is stated that the certified copy of Delhi Gazette published on 03.03.1994 by the Government of India showing the authority of the petitioner for taking care of the property in dispute and the certified copy of Delhi Gazette of perpetual lease dated 26.10.1927 and its supplementary deed dated 28.11.1928 which are between the Secretary of State for India in council and ancestor of the petitioner as ancestor of petitioner had made wakf the property which was acquired by the state and in compensation property was registered in favour of wakf. There are copy of two electricity bills dated 11.08.2011 in name of each respondent.It is further stated that the petitioner wants to file the abovesaid documents as the same were not filed by the petitioner as earlier the same were not in the custody of the petitioner. Petitioner has suggestted to his previous advocate to file them after receiving the same from the concerned authorities but due to oversight of the previous advocate, the same could not filed. The petitioner engaged new advocate and he informed the petitioner that the documents are necessary to E-108/09 Mohd. Islam Khan Vs. Ajay Kapoor & Anr. Page 1 of 4 //2// adjudicate this matter. It is prayed that the petitioner may kindly be allowed to file the documents.
2. Reply to the application filed on behalf of the petitioner. A vague reply was given in respect of para no. 3, 4 and 5 of the application as on the one hand para no. 1 to 5 of the application under reply were not denied to the extent of being matters of record and rest thereof as alleged are wrong and denied. It is unclear which part not denied and which part was denied. It is further stated in reply that by no stretch of imagination, it can be said to be duty of the advocate to arrange the documents for filing in the court. It is further stated that the matter is five years old and the petitioner failed to file the documents in question despite repeated objections of the respondents as to his locus standi to file the petition. It is further stated that the case is now already at an advanced stage and cross examination of the petitioner is in progress. The petitioner cannot be permitted to file the documents in question, at this stage, to fill in the lacunas and destroy the effect of his cross examination which has already taken place. All other averments made in the application were denied.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused and considered.
4. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following rulings :-
(i) Bank of India Vs. Goyal Textiles & Others, 89 (2001) DLT 524.
5. Ld. Counsel for the respondent relied upon the following rulings :-
(i) Gold Rock World Trade Ltd. Vs. Veejay Lakshmi Engineering Works Ltd., 143 (2007) DLT 113.E-108/09 Mohd. Islam Khan Vs. Ajay Kapoor & Anr. Page 2 of 4
//3//
(ii) Rajdhani Films (P) Ltd. Vs. Rajesh Arora and others, 57 (1995) DLT 510.
(iii) Metalex Pipes Ltd. Vs. Spark Electrodes Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., 90 (2001) DLT 482.
(iv) Asia Pacific Breweries Vs. Superior Industries, 2009 (109) DRJ
497.
(v) Haldiram (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Haldiram Bhujiwala & Anr., 2009 (109) DRJ 639.
6. The petitioner wants to file the certified copy of Delhi Gazette published on 03.03.1994 and the certified copy of perpetual lease deed dated 26.11.1997 and its supplementary deed dated 28.11.1928. All these documents are relating to the premises in question. The respondents have objected to give permission to the petitioner to file these documents on two main grounds. Firstly, that no sufficient cause has been shown by the petitioner why these documents were not filed earlier and secondly, that the petitioner wants to fill the lacunas in his case. It is further objected that the matter is already at an advanced stage of evidence of the petitioner and the petitioner is already partly cross examined, therefore, he cannot file any document at this belated stage. The ruling relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the respondents are mostly dealing in such situation where the documents were within the power and possession of the plaintiff but he could not file the same. The abovesaid documents were not in power and possession of the petitioner at the time when the present petition was filed. The Delhi Gazette published on E-108/09 Mohd. Islam Khan Vs. Ajay Kapoor & Anr. Page 3 of 4 //4// 03.03.1994 is a public document and the same can be filed at any stage. So far the deed of prepetual lease and its supplementary lease are concerned, I am of the view that as these lease deeds are relating to the premises in question, therefore, the same are necessary documents to reach the just decision of the case.
7. The objections of the respondents that no grounds are made by the petitioner to show why these documents were not filed earlier has no substance as it is well settled that court could allow the documents to be produced at any stage for the sake of fair trial and justice, and that procedural law was not to be taken as a resistant in the administration of justice as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs. Shyam Lal Murari, (1976) 1 SCC 719, because the courts were required to do justice and not to be guided by technicalities. So far the question of electricity bills are concerned, I do not find the same relevant to decide the controversy between the parties. The rulings relied by the Ld. Counsel for the respondents are not applicable to the facts of the present case. Hence, the application u/o 7 rule 14 r/w section 151 CPC is allowed accordingly.
(Announced in the open court (Pritam Singh)
on 05.07.2012) ARC/Central/THC/Delhi
E-108/09 Mohd. Islam Khan Vs. Ajay Kapoor & Anr. Page 4 of 4