SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(Del) 917

ARUNA SURESH
VIJAY KUMAR GOEL – Appellant
Versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
Mr. Rajinder Aggarwal, Advocate
Mr. Gaurav Sarin, Advocate

ORDER

ARUNA SURESH, J.

IA No.6254/2007 (Order 7 Rule 14 CPC) in CS (OS) No.2537/2000

1. Plaintiff has filed this application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC seeking permission to file additional documents as detailed in para 4 of the application.

Plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of Rs.98,65,000/- against the defendants which is pending adjudication and is at the stage of recording of plaintiff’s evidence.

2. It is contended by the plaintiff that he filed the documents which were in his power and possession and relevant for deciding the matter in issue. However, some of the documents which were in power and possession of the defendants were not filed by the defendants despite receipt of notice under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC dated 6.5.2006 served upon the defendants. Plaintiff filed an application under the Right to Information Act and was successful in obtaining various documents and letters exchanged between the parties. According to the plaintiff these documents are relevant for the purpose of fair and just disposal of the suit and they could not be filed earlier because they were not in his power and possession.

3. Defendants have opposed this application on the


























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top