Timely filing of evidence and relevance to the present suit are crucial in civil proceedings. Courts may impose costs for frivolous petitions and delays in the adjudication process.

JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J. - CM 5010/2021(exemption)

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

CM(M) 120/2021& CM 5009/2021

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 10.01.2020 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-04, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, on application(s) filed by the petitioners seeking to place on record the additional documents in the suit filed by the respondents being CS No.59517/2016.

2. By the first application dated 23.09.2017, the petitioner herein sought to place on record the affidavit of evidence and cross examination of the father of the respondent no.2 herein, Sh.Mukund Sharan Goyal ,recorded in the suit being CS(OS) No.1853/1998 titled as M/s Goyal Fashions Ltd. vs. M/s Shanti Vijay Jewellers & Anr.

3. It is pertinent to note here that the affidavit of Sh.Mukund Sharan Goyal is dated 25.05.2005, which was tendered in evidence in the said suit on 28.07.2006, and the cross examination of Sh.Mukund Sharan Goyal was recorded on 25.08.2009.

4. The application filed by the petitioners did not disclose any reason whatsoever for not filing the same in the suit from which the present petition arises, for a period of eight years. There is no explanation for the delay of eight years.

5. The application further sought to produce the cross examination of one Mr.Arun Jain which was recorded in the said other suit. The same was recorded on 10.05.2012 and again, there is no explanation for the delay of 5 years in filing it in the suit in question.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner, after some arguments, submits that he is not pressing his challenge against the dismissal of the said application dated 23.09.2017.

7. The second application is dated 18.12.2019 by which the petitioners sought to place on record a sale deed dated 12.01.2005 executed between M/s Vishnu Apartments, a partnership firm and one Mr.Subhash Barjatya with respect to an apartment at Jaipur.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent no.1 is one of the partners of M/s Vishnu Apartments. He submits that the sale deed was relevant inasmuch as the transaction in question was conducted by the respondents at the behest of the said Mr.Subhash Barjatya, however, the same had been denied by the respondents, who had pleaded that they had no relationship with the said Mr.Subhash Barjatya.

9. In this regard, it is important to note here that the respondent no.2 was not cross examined by the petitioner in the suit out of which the present petition arises. Even the said Mr.Subhash Barjatya was not summoned as a witness by the petitioners. The said application was in fact premised on the cross examination of Sh.Mukund Sharan Goyal in the other suit, which has been refused to be taken record hereinabove. Mr. Mukund Saran Goyal was neither a party to the present suit nor had been summoned or produced as a witness in the present suit.

10. It is also relevant to note that the other suit, wherein Mr. Mukund Saran Goyal was a party and had given his evidence, was decreed against the petitioners vide judgment and order dated 20.09.2017. The petitioners filed an appeal against the said judgment and decree being RFA(OS) No.68/2018. In the said appeal, the petitioners filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC seeking permission to place on record this very sale deed. The said application was, however, dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide its order dated 04.12.2019 observing as under:

5. On our scanning the impugned judgment, it transpires that the learned Single Judge had specifically noted in para 14 that when Sh.Mukund Sharan Goyal, Managing Director of the respondent Company came in the witness box as PW-1 and was cross-examined by the appellants at length, no suggestion was put to the said witness, if Rs.1.5 crore was paid by him at the behest of Shri Subhash Barjatya, as security advance for the jewellery intended to be taken by the latter from the appellants. Rather, PW-