The discretionary power to file additional documentary evidence should be exercised sparingly and for valid reasons, and the petitioners-plaintiffs could not seek to file additional documents as a matter of right after issues had been framed.

1. Present petition has been filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India challenging the order dated 21st February, 2009 by virtue of which petitioners-plaintiffs two applications filed under Order 7 Rule 14 of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to ‘CPC’) have been dismissed. While by virtue of first application, petitioners-plaintiffs wanted to bring on record fourteen volumes of documents, by subsequent application petitioners wanted to bring on record two volumes of documents.

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 except the documents as detailed at Sr. Nos. 83 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. Secondly, in the application dated 20-01-09 the plaintiffs have also submitted that the framing of additional issues by this court on 14-11-08 has also cast a duty on the plaintiffs to file additional documents in order to prove and discharge the onus of the additional issues and, hence, they made urgent and immediate search for documents. Firstly, the said additional issues have been framed on the basis of the existing pleadings of the parties. Parties are required to file the documents before framing of the issues. Secondly, this stand contradicts the stand taken by the plaintiffs that the documents could not be filed due to inadvertence and oversight. Had the plaintiffs made an honest search for the documents now sought to be filed before framing of issues/additional issues they would have certainly laid their hands on the same and filed them without any delay. Therefore, I fail to understand under what provision of law the plaintiffs can now be permitted to file the documents after the framing of additional issues. Quite strangely enough, the plaintiffs have even gone to the extent of saying that one of the grounds for not filing the documents at an earlier stage is on account of immediate directions of the Apex court. During the course of arguments at the bar the Ld Counsel for the plaintiffs has contended that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has passed an order dated 1-10-08 in SLP (c) Nos. 22728-22729/2007 – Haldiram Bhujiawala & Anr. Vs. Haldiram (India) Pvt. Ltd. in a hurry. When he was asked to explain what did he mean by the words immediate or hurry, he could not give any answer. In my considered opinion, the Ld Counsel for the plaintiffs was /is not justified in making accusations against the highest court of the country before this court. Vide the said order, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has issued certain directions including a direction to this Court of dispose off the