Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. Relevant observations of the trial Court while rejecting applications filed by the petitioners are reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:

"The suit had been instituted in the year 1991. Since then both the parties have been filing one application or the other. All the applications filed by each other are being contested very hotly. The parties have even gone to the Hon‟ble High Court and also to the Hon‟ble Supreme Court twice/thrice. There is a neck and neck fight between the parties. They are litigating with each other diligently, vigorously and without any deterence. The parties have been taking all precautions in filing applications and documents. Therefore, can it be said that these documents could not be filed earlier due to oversight and inadvertence or there was a human error in not doing so earlier or that the error, if any, was on the part of the functionary or the advisors of the plaintiffs? Certainly not. All the documents to 99 of the application dated 28-01-09 were in the custody of the plaintiffs since long and the documents pertaining to the years 2002, 2006 and 2007 were in their custody for the last seven/three/two years. Therefore, when according to the plaintiffs themselves their photocopies have already been filed in 1996 or 1999 or in 2003, it cannot be said that the original documents or the certified copies could not be filed earlier. What was the hitch for the plaintiffs in not filing the original/certified copies of the documents in 1996, 1999 and 2003 itself.

22. Moreover, in the present case on perusal of applications filed by petitioners-plaintiffs under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC, I am of the view that discretionary power with the trial Court to file additional documentary evidence has been rightly refused. I may mention that in the said applications filed by petitioners- plaintiffs, the only reason given for filing of these documents at a belated stage was, "on account of human error and inadvertence and oversight that the said documents escaped the notice of the Advocate." Consequently, it is not open to the petitioners-plaintiffs to now contend in the present proceedings that the documents could not be filed initially as they were not in their power and possession. In fact, from perusal of documents sought to be filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs, it is apparent that majority of these documents were all throughout in power and possession of petitioners-plaintiffs.