Court Denies Application for Additional Documents, Citing Delays in Decade-Old Suit
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Girish Kathpalia, dismissed a petition filed by Sanjiv Narula challenging the trial court's order that denied his application to submit additional documents at the final argument stage of a suit initiated in 2012. The High Court found the petition to be frivolous and aimed at delaying the resolution of the long-pending case, imposing a cost of Rs. 20,000 on the petitioner.
The dispute revolves around a civil suit filed by Narula seeking recovery of possession of immovable property, along with damages, mesne profits, a declaration, and a permanent injunction. The trial court had previously dismissed Narula's application under Order VII Rule 14(3) and Order XVI Rule 1(3) of the Civil Procedure Code, citing that allowing the filing of additional documents at such a late stage would unjustly prolong the proceedings.
Narula's senior counsel argued that the documents, held by a private trust, Ramjas Foundation, were unavailable earlier and were crucial to the case. However, the High Court observed that the petitioner was aware of these documents since 2016 from another suit and failed to provide a valid explanation for not obtaining them earlier.
Justice Kathpalia emphasized that while procedural rules serve the cause of justice, they should not be exploited to rectify deficiencies realized during final arguments. Granting Narula's request would necessitate a de novo trial, further delaying a case already pending for over a decade.
The court also noted the lack of any effort by Narula to summon witnesses or produce the documents earlier in the trial, pointing out the absence of any explanation for this omission in his application. The petitioner admitted that had the trial court not raised certain queries, he would have proceeded with the existing records.
Concluding that there was no legal infirmity in the trial court's decision, the High Court dismissed the petition and ordered Narula to deposit the cost amount online with Bharat Ke Veer within one week, directing a copy of the order to the trial court for ensuring compliance.
Bottom Line:
Dismissal of application under Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC and Order XVI Rule 1(3) CPC for filing additional documents at the stage of final arguments upheld - Petition found frivolous and filed with the intent to delay the disposal of the suit pending since 2012.
Statutory provision(s): Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC, Order XVI Rule 1(3) CPC, Section 151 CPC, Article 227 of the Constitution of India
Sanjiv Narula v. Pargat Singh, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc id # 2825991
