A litigant ought not to suffer due to a mistake by the defendant's counsel, and the court may allow the placement of additional documents at a belated stage of the proceedings if it deems fit.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. - This hearing has been done through video conferencing.

2. The present petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 23rd October, 2019, passed by the ld. ADJ-12, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, by which the application under Order VIII Rule 1A of the CPC, was dismissed by the Trial Court. By the said application the Defendant in the suit/ Petitioner herein, sought to place on record certain documents.

3. The brief background is that a civil suit bearing Suit No. 514/2008 for possession and recovery of arrears of mesne profits and damages, was filed by Mrs. Shakuntala Devi wife of Late Mr. Rajinder Pal Sharma against the Defendant Mr. Ashok Kumar Sharma. Mr. Rajinder Pal Sharma and Mr. Ashok Kumar Sharma are brothers. The suit property is the first floor of the property bearing No. H-72, Shivaji Park, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi-110026. The suit was tried before the ld. ADJ, and the Plaintiff examined four witnesses and closed his evidence. The Defendant examined three witnesses including an official from the Army Base Workshop, Delhi Cantt., to bring on record documents relating to the appointment, salary and pension of Mr. Rajinder Pal Sharma and Late Mr. Jaswant Rai Sharma. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for final arguments.

4. Around the time when submissions were being heard, it appears that the Defendant realized that some documents which were on record had not been exhibited through the evidence of DW-4, who was the witness from the Army. DW-5 was also examined, however, ld. counsel for the Defendant did not confront the documents to the official from the Army, and completely missed out the fact that the application for placing on record additional documents was yet to be adjudicated, and the same continued to remain pending. It was during the final hearing then that the application was pressed before the Trial Court and the Trial Court primarily held that the Defendant had adequate opportunity to place his evidence on record, and thus at this belated stage, he cannot be permitted to lead evidence. The copy of the impugned order passed by the ld. ADJ reads as under:

"Further arguments heard. During arguments, it is pointed out by counsel for defendant that on 08.03.2019 an application u/o 8 Rule 1 A CPC was filed by the defendant to take on record certain documents and prove the same as per law. But the said application has not been disposed off till date. He submits that there are some documents in the said application which are necessary for the disposal of the case. Hence, the defendant be permitted to take these documents on record and prove the same.

Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the same on the ground that after filing of the said application the defendant did not press the said application and led further defence evidence and closed DE on 07.06.2019 and therefore, he cannot be allowed to say that the application has not been disposed off though formally no order has been passed to dispose off the same.

I have heard the submissions of Ld. Counsel for parties and perused the record. Considering the facts that after filing of the application defendant evidence was led and thereafter DE was closed vide separate statement of counsel for defendant and case was fixed for final arguments on 07.06.2019, hence, now no ground is made out for allowing the said application as it would amount to re-opening of the defendant evidence. Further Ld. Counsel for defendant submits that he want to prove only two documents which pertains to the salary of Rajinder Pal but after perusing the said application, I found that there is no mention that he wants to prove any of the documents relating to DW Rajinder Pal. In these circumstances, application u/o 8 Rule 1 A CPC is dismissed."

The present petition has been preferred, challenging this order.

5. The submission of Mr. Gupta, ld. counsel for the Defendant, is that the case of the Defendant before the Trial Court is that the sui