ORDER
J.P. Singh, J.
1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 20.9.2004 passed by the Civil Judge, Delhi dismissing an application under Order VII Rule 14(3) of Code of Civil Procedure for filing additional documents on record.
2. I have heard Mr. Sunil Malhotra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. J.G. Bhardwaj, learned Counsel for respondent and have gone through the impugned order as also copies of the documents placed on the file.
3. Briefly the facts are that the respondent herein (plaintiff in the trial Court, hereinafter referred to as ‘plaintiff’) filed a suit for mandatory injunction against the petitioner herein (defendant in the trial Court, hereinafter referred to as ‘defendant’). The case of the plaintiff is that he was allotted plot No. A-16, Chitranjan Park, New Delhi on lease hold basis by the Ministry of Rehabilitation and thereafter he raised construction and allowed the defendant (his brother) to occupy the first floor accommodation as it was lying vacant, as a licensee in November, 1984. The defendant refused to vacate the suit property and thereupon the plaintiff revoked his license orally and asked for return of his possession by 31.8.1988.
4. In the written statement, it was alleged that the plot was allotted to Shri Ashutosh Ganguli, father of the parties by the Ministry of Rehabilitation on 12.6.1968 for a sum of Rs. 9,600/-. The plot measured 320 sq. yards and after demise of the father in Calcutta in 1971, all his legal heirs agreed in 1976 that construction should be raised. The plaintiff represented all the legal heirs, because he being a government employee could get a loan from his department and for this reason also the plot was mutated in his name only. Though no relinquished deed or any other document was executed so in fact they were all joint owners. The plaintiff accordingly got the construction plan sanctioned and constructed ground floor in 1978. Though some of the funds were provided by the defendant.
5. Thereafter, the defendant also got the plan sanctioned for raising construction on the first floor and even took a loan from his provident fund as he was working in Dr. Zakir Hussain college. The defendant thereupon raised construction on the first floor from his own fund and spent Rs. 1.70 lakh and started living at the first floor as owner. When construction of first floor was in the process, the defendant and the plaintiff exchanged a lot of correspondence and the plaintiff’ was willing and agreed for the said construction on the first floor. But subsequently, he started creating trouble and threatened to disposses the defendant.
6. Therefore, the defendant had to file a suit against the plaintiff for perpetual injunction which is subjudice and is fixed for final arguments. All the original documents were filed in the said suit between the brothers where the defendant is plaintiff and the plaintiff herein is the defendant. Official witnesses have also been examined in the said suit. In these facts and circumstances, the defendant could not file the said original documents in the present suit, he was, however, under the impression that copies were filed. In these facts and circumstances at the time of evidence he came to know that the documents have not been filed in the present suit, therefore, the application under Order VII Rule 14(3), CPC was moved, which was opposed on the ground that the defendant wanted to delay the disposal of the case and that in any case he could have filed copies of the documents with the written statement and that the requisite stipulated time had passed and filing of the additional documents were barred and that some of the documents do not form part of the record of the other suit and it is specifically objected that the documents at serial No. ‘X’ of para 10 of the application was not filed in the connected suit and the Court dealing with the said matter had dismissed the application of the defendant herein, to file that documents in the connected suit. Therefore, filing of the said documents (bank statement) is intended to cover lacuna in the other suit.
7. Both the learned Counsel have addressed arguments in support of the above mentioned contentions. In the impugned order, the learned trial Judge has noted that written statement was filed on 14.8.1999, issues were framed on 27.9.2001 and the defendant was allowed 30 days time to file the documents, the evidence was closed and the defendant had been delaying the proceedings and the learned trial Judge opined that the permission had been sought at a very late stage. It was further observed that it was the duty of defendant to file the documents at the appropriate stage. Provisions of Order VII Rule 14 Sub-Clause 3, CPC inter alia provide that a document which ought to be produced in Court by the plaintiff when the plaint is presented, or to be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint but is not produced or entered accordingly, shall not without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit. Same are the provisions under Order VIII Rule 1(A) in respect of written statement.
8. The above provisions stipulate that the documents covered in this order cannot be received as evidence without leave of the Court.
9. The above facts and circumstances show that all the documents except documents at serial No. ‘X’ mentioned in the application have already been filed in the connected suit, therefore, only their copies could be filed in the present suit which the petitioner-applicant-defendant failed to file within the requisite time. This could be an error on the part of the learned Counsel as well.
10. As regards document ‘X’, which is a bank statement of saving account, since application for placing it on record was not allowed in the other suit and it is not known as to whether the said order was challenged, the same also cannot be allowed in this suit and there is no plausible explanation as to why the statement was not filed in this suit within the stipulated period.
11. Considering all the facts and circumstances of this case, the petition is partly allowed and in the result the application for placing copies of the documents which are already filed in the connected matter is also allowed subject to cost of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) which shall be paid by the petitioner-defendant to the respondent-plaintiff.
12. The petition is accordingly disposed of.