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

2021 Supreme(Del) 733

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
AMIT BANSAL, J.
Manohar Lal - Petitioner
Versus
Tara Chand - Respondent
CM(M) 951 of 2021 & CM No. 42520 of 2021 (for early hearing), CM No. 38639 of 2021 (for stay), CM(M) 1066 of 2021 & CM No. 42055 of 2021 (for Stay)
Decided On : 15-12-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Praveen Suri.
For the Respondent: Mr. Anil Kumar Bhasin.

Point of Law: While exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Court is not sitting as an appellate court over the orders passed by the subordinate courts.

Headnote:

Constitution of India - Article 227 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VIII Rule 1A and Rule 3 read with Section 151 - Applications of the petitioners/defendants for placing on record documents, have been dismissed - Documents always in the knowledge of the defendants and in their possession--Defendants failed to place the same on record in a timely manner.

Finding of the Court: Documents can only be allowed to be filed by the defendant at a belated stage if it can be shown that despite due diligence, the said documents were not within the knowledge of the defendant or could not have been produced earlier - documents were always in the knowledge of the defendants and in their possession- defendants failed to place the same on record in a timely manner - The defendants cannot claim that the said documents, which are sale deeds in their favour, were not in their knowledge and/or possession as the factum of such sale deeds, as per the counsel for the defendants, was pleaded in the written statement filed in 1995. Counsel for the plaintiffs has correctly pointed out that even in the written statement, there is a reference to a sale deed executed in favour of the defendant no.2 - While exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Court is not sitting as an appellate court over the orders passed by the subordinate courts. It is only in the cases of patent illegality or manifest error causing prejudice to a party that the High Courts can interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India - no grounds are made out for interference with the impugned orders in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Result: Petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

1. Both these petitions have been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning orders of the Trial Court, whereby the applications of the petitioners/defendants [hereinafter ‘defendants’] for placing on record documents, have been dismissed.

2. In CM(M) 951/2021, the defendant has impugned orders passed by the Civil Judge-03, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, being (i) the order dated 10th October, 2019, whereby the application of the defendants under Order VIII Rule 1A and Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) has been dismissed; and, (ii) the order dated 26th February, 2020, whereby the review of the aforesaid application preferred by the defendants has been dismissed.

3. In CM(M) 1066/2021, the defendants have impugned the order dated 09th November, 2021 passed by the Civil Judge-03, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, whereby the application filed on behalf of the defendants under Order XIII Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC has been dismissed.

4. CM(M) 951/2021 came up for hearing on 28th October, 2021, when the counsel for the defendants apprised this Court of the application filed on behalf of the defendants under Order XIII Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, which was listed for orders before the Trial Court. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned to 29th November, 2021 and CM(M) 1066/2021 challenging the order dated 09th November, 2021 was tagged with the aforesaid petition. Arguments were heard in both the petitions on 29th November, 2021 and judgment was reserved.

5. Both the captioned petitions are between the same parties and in relation to the same suit and therefore, are being disposed of by a common judgment.

6. Before dealing with the submissions of the parties, it is deemed appropriate to detail the facts preceding the filing of the present petitions.

6.1 The suit from which the present petitions arise was filed on 19th April, 1995 by the respondents/plaintiffs [hereinafter ‘plaintiffs’] against the defendants for mandatory and permanent injunction.

6.2 Written statement was filed by the defendants 4th May, 1995 and replication was filed on 16th August, 1995.

6.3 Thereafter, issues were framed in the suit on 1st April, 2004 and evidence by way of affidavit of evidence of PW1 and PW2 was filed on 14th May, 2004, which was finally closed on 05th September, 2018.

6.4 On 23rd February, 2019, the Trial Court allowed the application of the defendants for filing list of witnesses, subject to costs of Rs.8,000/- as it was filed at a belated stage.

6.5 The matter was put up for defendants’ evidence and on 03rd June, 2019, the Trial Court was informed by the counsel for the defendants that the documents sought to be relied on by the defendants were not on record. Therefore, the counsel for the defendants sough time to inspect the court file.

6.6 Counsel for the defendants moved an application under Order VIII Rule 1A and Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the CPC in August, 2019 for placing on record two sale deeds dated 16th February, 1987.

6.7 Reply to the application was filed on 16th August, 2019 by the plaintiffs in opposition to the said application.

6.8 Arguments were heard on the application under Order VIII Rule 1A of the CPC by the Trial Court and vide the impugned order dated 10th October, 2019, the said application was dismissed.

6.9 Against the impugned order dated 10th October, 2019, the defendants preferred a review under Order XLVII read with Section 114 of the CPC, which was also dismissed by the Trial Court by the impugned order dated 26th February, 2020.

6.10 Subsequently, the defendants engaged a new counsel and two applications were moved on behalf of the defendants on 21st October, 2021, under (i) Order XIII Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC for placing on record certain documents; and, (ii) Section 151 of the CPC for allowing defendants to lead evidence.

6.11 Both the aforesaid applications were dismissed by the Trial Court vide the impugned order dated 09th November, 2021.

7. The applicat

          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 Back to top