Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Tushar Rao Gedela, J.
Daman Preet Gujral – Appellant
Versus
Sharwen Kumar Khanna – Respondent
CM(M) 1117 of 2021
Decided On : 27-02-2023
DOCUMENTS - Civil Procedure - CPC, 1908 - Order VIII Rule 1A, Order VI Rule 17, Order XI Rule 1(10) - The court allowed the petitioner/defendant to place additional documents on record, quashing the impugned order and directing the Trial Court to consider the documents subject to proof, relevancy, and mode of proof. The petitioner/defendant was directed to pay costs for the delay in production of the documents.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the dismissal of the application under Order VIII Rule 1A CPC, 1908 and an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, 1908 seeking to file new documents and amend the written statement. The petitioner sought to place additional documents on record to support their defense.
Finding of the Court:
The court observed that the petitioner/defendant should be provided sufficient opportunity to defend itself and that the refusal to take the documents on record by the Trial Court constituted material irregularity and denied fair opportunity to the petitioner/defendant.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Trial Court erred in dismissing the application to file new documents and amend the written statement, and whether the petitioner/defendant should be allowed to place additional documents on record to support their defense.
Ratio Decidendi: The burden to make good the defense lies upon the petitioner/defendant, and they should be provided all sufficient opportunity to defend themselves. The refusal to take the documents on record by the Trial Court constituted material irregularity and denied fair opportunity to the petitioner/defendant.
Final Decision: The impugned order was quashed and set aside, and the Trial Court was directed to take on record the documents as filed subject to proof, relevancy, and mode of proof. The petitioner/defendant was directed to pay costs for the delay in production of the documents. The Trial Court was also directed to consider the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, 1908 afresh on its own merits and proceed with the hearing of the application as well as the suit without being influenced by any observation made in the judgment.
JUDGMENT
Tushar Rao Gedela, J. (Oral)
[The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode]
CM APPL. 9487/2023
1. Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
2. Application stands disposed of.
CM(M) 1117/2021 & CM APPL. 9486/2023
3. The petitioner challenges the impugned order dated 10.11.2021 in CS (COMM) No. 1317/2019 tilted "SHARWEN KUMAR KHANNA Vs. DAMAN PREET GUJRAL" whereby the learned Trial Court has dismissed the application under order VIII Rule 1A CPC, 1908 along with an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, 1908 whereby the petitioner/defendant sought filing of new documents and consequent amendment to the written statement.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the specific stand of the petitioner before the learned Trial Court has been crystallized in the order dated 13.02.2022 which is placed on record along with CM APP No. 9486/2023 whereby while framing issues, the learned Trial Court had on the basis of pleadings directed, the petitioner/defendant to lead evidence in the first instance.
5. The concerned paragraph is extracted here under:
"Since the defendant is admitting the receipt of the amount of Rs.12 lakhs from the plaintiff for the purpose of supply of goods to him but is taking a specific defence that he was just a facilitator and had transferred the said amount to the concerned agencies in China, so I am of the view that firstly defendant has to lead evidence to prove his version. If from the evidence of the defendant his defence could not be proved out then there may not be any requirement of leading evidence by the plaintiff because of the admission of the defendant regarding receipt of money. Accordingly, it is directed that defendant will lead evidence first. Counsel for the defendant stated that he may examine three I four witnesses including the defendant."
6. Learned counsel submits that the application seeking placing on record additional documents was filed, on the basis that certain documents showing direct dealing between the respondent/plaintiff and M/s. Wellcost Ltd. based in China was sought to be proved.
7. Learned counsel submits that this issue is the main stay of the petitioner/defendant in his written statement filed before the learned Trial Court. Learned counsel submits that even in the original written statement this was his stand.
8. He further submits that, though certain emails were filed, however, subsequently, fresh emails which were directly in relation to the said defence taken by the petitioner/defendant, were furnished to the defendant by one Mr. Aditya Sabhrawal, who is stated to be his friend.
9. Learned counsel submits that Mr. Sabhrawal was also the son of the owner of M/s. Wellcost Ltd. Learned counsel submits that the reason for neither mentioning in the statement of truth nor annexing the aforesaid emails/ correspondences and other evidences along with the original written statement was the reason that the documents were never in his possession nor in his knowledge at any point of time till he met Mr. Aditya Sabhrawal.
10. Based thereon, learned counsel submits that learned Trial Court overlooked the essential ingredients of what would essentially be the defence of the petitioner/defendant and in order to do substantial justice it was relevant that these documents are placed on record.
11. Lastly, learned counsel submits that the order dated 13.02.2020 itself noticed the basic defence of the petitioner, hence full opportunity to defend his case ought to have been granted by the learned Trial Court.
12. Having not done so, learned counsel submits that, the impugned order suffers from procedural irregularity and is based on denial of justice and fair play.
13. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff brings attention of this Court to page 168 of the petition which is the application under Order VIII Rule 1A CPC, 1908 filed on behalf of the petitioner/defendant, particularly to para 4 whereby it beco
The court emphasized the importance of providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner/defendant to defend themselves and held that the refusal to take the documents on record by the Trial Court c....
The absence of sufficient explanation in the application under Order VIII Rule 1A of the CPC, 1908, and the lack of clarification or version of the petitioner/defendant in the written statement led t....
The court affirmed that documents not disclosed with the written statement in commercial cases cannot be admitted, but contradictory decisions on evidence closure were ruled unsustainable.
The court emphasized the importance of allowing additional documents at a belated stage if the delay is explained and does not cause prejudice to the opposing party.
Order XI Rule 1(7) of CPC, as applicable to commercial disputes, casts an obligation on defendant to file all documents in its power, possession, control or custody.
Matters of procedure should not hinder the dispensation of justice, and the relevance of documents for just and fair adjudication should be considered when deciding on applications to bring documents....
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.
Litigants should not suffer due to their counsel’s mistakes, allowing late evidence in exceptional circumstances while stressing the need for expedition in justice.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
