* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO(OS) No.556/2010 & CM No.16398/2010
Dr. V.P. Sharma .....Appellant through
Appellant in person
versus
Manu Khanna .....Respondent through
Dr. Poonam Khanna, mother
of the Respondent
% Date of Hearing: April 20, 2011
Date of Decision: May 06, 2011
CORAM:
* HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAMAJIT SEN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the Judgment? No
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No
3. Whether the Judgment should be reported
in the Digest? No
VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.
1. This Appeal is directed against the Order dated 19.7.2010
passed by the learned Single Judge refusing to grant Leave to
place on record certain additional documents holding the same
to have been filed after inordinate delay.
2. The dispute pertains to partition of the property bearing
No.C-18, Shivalik, New Delhi which is in the joint possession of
the Appellant/Defendant, and the Respondent/Plaintiff and his
mother through whom the subject Suit has been filed.
FAO(OS)556.2010 Page 1 of 3
3. One of the Issues struck in the Suit reads as follows:-
Whether the defendant purchased the ground floor of
property bearing municipal No.C-18, Shivalik, New
Delhi with funds made available by Shri Room Ram,
father of the Defendant and grandfather of the Plaintiff.
If yes, to what effect? OPP
4. The Division Bench of this Court, vide Order dated
18.1.2008, granted liberty to the Respondent/Plaintiff as well as
Defendant to adduce evidence in Trial to substantiate his
(their?) stand with regard to the ownership of the Ground Floor
and as to from where the funds had come to purchase the same.
The Appellant/Defendant, to the extent the Plaintiff would
adduce his evidence on the said Issue, was liable to be cross-
examined as well.
5. Pursuant to this liberty granted by the Division Bench, the
Respondent filed his additional Affidavit on 17.3.2008 through
his mother. The Appellant, however, filed an Application bearing
IA No.3419/2010 on 12 (17?).3.2010 seeking to bring on record
some original documents allegedly in response to the additional
Affidavit filed by the mother of the Plaintiff.
6. We have gone through the list of the additional documents
which are sought to be brought on record, and we agree with
the learned Single Judge that they appear to have been in the
possession of the Appellant all along, and could have been filed
FAO(OS)556.2010 Page 2 of 3
earlier as well. The Appellant has also failed to explain why the
said application to file these additional documents was filed so
belatedly. Since the Trial is proceeding, allowing the Appellant
to bring these documents is only going to unnecessarily prolong
the Trial to the detriment of the Respondent.
7. The Orders of the Coordinate Bench, on which reliance is
placed for the liberty to file additional documents, also records
that the Bench, vide Order dated 7.5.2007, had expedited the
hearing of Suit as it was noted that the Suit had not made much
progress because of filing of application after application in the
Suit. We see the present Application as another attempt towards
the same end. The discretion exercised by the learned Single
Judge does not seem to us to be perverse or arbitrary in any
respect. On the contrary, we find the learned Single Judge to be
perfectly justified in dismissing the Appellant’s Application.
8. No ground for interference made out. Appeal is dismissed.
CM No.16398/2010 is also dismissed.
( VIKRAMAJIT SEN )
JUDGE
( SIDDHARTH MRIDUL )
May 06, 2011 JUDGE
tp
FAO(OS)556.2010 Page 3 of 3