Delhi District Court
Suit No. 275/09 vs Pawan Kumar Chopra .....D E F E N D A N T on 10 September, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. PITAMBER DUTT; AD&SJ(CENTRAL)-11,DELHI
Suit No. 275/09
Satish Kumar Bhatia ......P la i n t i f f
Versus
Pawan Kumar Chopra .....D e f e n d a n t
ORDER
1 Vide this order I shall decide an application filed by the defendant under Section 151 CPC for seeking permission to file additional documents.
2 It is averred in the application that defendant has been contesting the present suit diligently. It is further averred that defendant has found some documents which were not traceable earlier, he has also received some documents from his Chartered Accountant who was not in a position to deliver those documents at the earlier point of time due to his medical reasons. It is further averred that aforesaid documents are relevant for proper adjudication of the right of parties but due to some inadvertance on the part of earlier Chartered Accountant these documents could not be placed earlier. It is further averred that no prejudice would be caused if those documents are allowed to be placed on record. By this application, it is prayed that defendant be allowed to place these additional documents on record.
3 Reply to this application has been filed making averment that defendant is trying to delay the present suit on one pretext or the other. These documents were within the power and possession of the defendant but were not produced at the relevant time. It is denied that these documents are relevant for the proper adjudication of the rights of the parties. It is stated that defendant cannot be permitted to file these documents at this stage. It is denied that defendant would Suit No. 27509 3/3 suffer grave consequences if the application is not allowed. All other averments have been denied. It is prayed that application be dismissed with cost.
4 I have heard ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the application and reply thereof. Vide this application defendant is seeking permission to place on record the documents started from page no. 7 to 140 mentioned in the Index filed alongwith the application. As per the defendant these documents could not be filed earlier as these were not located and certain documents were with his Chartered Accountant and due to his medical reason these documents could not be produced.
5 The explanation furnished by the defendant for not placing these documents at the relevant time does not inspire confidence for the simple reason that defendant has not disputed that these documents were within his power and possession, despite the same defendant failed to produce these documents at the proper stage. But no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff if defendant is allowed to place these documents at this stage because matter is still pending for defendant's evidence. The delay, if any, caused by the defendant for not furnishing these documents at the relevant stage can be compensated by imposing reasonable cost.
6 In view of the above facts and circumstances as well as keeping in view the interest of justice, the application filed by the defendant under Section 151 CPC is allowed subject to cost of Rs. 2,500/-. The defendant is permitted to place these documents on record.
Announced in the open court ( PITAMBER DUTT)
On the 10th September, 2013 Additional District Judge
Delhi
Suit No. 27509 3/3
IN THE COURT OF SH. PITAMBER DUTT; AD&SJ(CENTRAL)-11,DELHI Suit No. 275/09 Satish Kumar Bhatia ......P la i n t i f f Versus Pawan Kumar Chopra .....D e f e n d a n t ORDER 1 Vide this order I shall decide an application filed by the defendant under order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC for seeking amendment in the written statement.
2 It is averred in the application that plaintiff has filed the present suit against the defendant on the basis of false averment, during the pendency of the suit some new developments have occurred concerning the present suit because defendant has started exporting its high quality goods to different countries around the world and also received certificate of Importer-Exporter Code. It is further averred that aforesaid subsequent event deserves necessary consideration of this court and for that purpose defendant want to incorporate these facts by amending the written statement. It is further averred that amendment is relevant and necessary and no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff if the said amendment is allowed. By way of present application, it is prayed that defendant be permitted to incorporate said amendment in the written statement.
3 Reply to this application has been filed taking preliminary objection that the application is not maintainable as same has been filed only after plaintiff has Suit No. 27509 3/3 led his entire evidence, the application suffers from delay and latches, that facts sought to be pleaded by amendment are neither relevant nor material to the issue involved .
4 On merit it is averred that defendant has obtained the said licence in the year 2010 but he kept waiting for three years and has not furnished any explanation for such delay. All other averments have been denied. It is prayed that application be dismissed with cost.
5 I have heard ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the application and reply thereof. As per order 6 Rule 17 CPC either of the parties can be allowed to add or delete the facts/pleadings by making requisite amendment which are necessary for the just and effective adjudication of the dispute. By CPC Amendment Act 2012 legislature has incorporated a provision of Rule 17 whereby it has been mandated that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the commencement of the trial unless the court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, parties could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial.
6 The defendant has filed present application for seeking amendment in his written statement at the stage of defendant's evidence. Issues in this case were framed on 28.10.2010 and thereafter matter was posted for plaintiff's evidence. The defendant is seeking permission to incorporate the necessary facts qua obtaining Import-Export Certificate by him during the pendency of the suit. The said certificate was issued on 3.10.2010 whereas the instant application has been filed on 19.3.2013.
7 Nothing has been mentioned in the application as to why the said fact could not be incorporated by the defendant before commencement of the trial. Moreover the amendment sought by the defendant by way of present application Suit No. 27509 3/3 is neither necessary nor material for the just and complete adjudication of the disputed.
8 In view of the above facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that application filed by the defendant under order 6 Rule 17 CPC is without any merit, same is accordingly dismissed.
Announced in the open court ( PITAMBER DUTT)
On the 10th September, 2013 Additional District Judge
Delhi
Suit No. 27509 3/3
IN THE COURT OF SH. PITAMBER DUTT; AD&SJ(CENTRAL)-11,DELHI Suit No. 275/09 Satish kumar Bhatia ......P la i n t i f f Versus Pawan Kumar Chopra .....D e f e n d a n t ORDER 1 Vide this order I shall decide an application filed by the defendant under Section 151 CPC for seeking permission to file additional documents.
2 It is averred in the application that defendant has been contesting the present suit diligently. It is further averred that while trying to locate some documents defendant has found some documents which were not traceable earlier and the defendant has also received some documents from his Chartered Accountant who was not in a position to deliver those documents at the earlier point of time due to his medical reasons. It is further averred that aforesaid documents are relevant for proper adjudication of the right of parties but due to some inadvertance on the part of earlier Chartered Accountant these documents could not be placed earlier. It is further averred that no prejudice would be caused if those documents are allowed to be placed on record. By this application, it is prayed that defendant be allowed to place these additional documents on record.
3 Reply to this application has been filed taking preliminary averment that defendant is trying to delay the present suit on one pretext or the other. These documents were within the power and possession of the defendant but were not produced at the relevant time. It is denied that these documents are relevant for the proper adjudication of the rights of the parties. It is stated that defendant cannot be permitted to file these documents after the plaintiff has closed his Suit No. 27509 3/3 evidence. It is denied that defendant would suffer grave consequences if the application is not allowed. All other averments have been denied. It is prayed that application be dismissed with cost.
5 I have heard ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the application and reply thereof. Vide this application the defendant has sought permission to place on record the documents documents started page no. 7 to 140 mentioned in the Index filed alongwith the application. As per the defendant these documents could not be filed earlier as these were not located and certain documents were with his Chartered Accountant and due to his medical reason these documents could not be produced. The explanation furnished by the defendant for not placing these documents at the relevant time does not inspire confidence for the simple reason that defendant has not disputed that these documents were within the power and possession of the defendant despite the same defendant failed to produce these documents at the proper stage. However, no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff if defendant is allowed to place these documents at this stage because matter is still pending for defendant's evidence. The delay, if any, caused by the defendant for not furnishing the documents at the relevant stage can be compensated by imposing reasonable cost.
8 In view of the above facts and circumstances as well as keeping in view the interest of justice, the application filed by the defendant under Section 151 CPC is allowed subject to cost of Rs. 2,500/-. Application is accordingly disposed off.
Announced in the open court ( PITAMBER DUTT)
On the 10th September, 2013 Additional District Judge
Delhi
Suit No. 27509 3/3
Suit No. 27509 3/3