Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Tushar Rao Gedela, J.
Sita Ram – Appellant
Versus
Kuldeep Singh – Respondent
CM(M) 678 of 2023
Decided On : 27-04-2023
Relevance of Documents - Civil Procedure Code - The court held that documents may be placed on record by the parties if they are relevant to the issues or have any remote connection to the pleadings as laid before the Civil Court. The documents sought to be placed on record were found to have no relevance to the pleadings and were rightly rejected by the trial court.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the dismissal of the application under Order VIII Rule 1A of the CPC, 1908 seeking to place certain documents on record. The petitioner argued that the documents were relevant and vital for the case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the documents had no connection or nexus to the pleadings and were rightly rejected by the trial court. However, the petitioner was not precluded from using the documents during trial.
Issues: The main issue was the relevance of the documents sought to be placed on record by the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the principle that documents may be placed on record if they are relevant to the issues or have any remote connection to the pleadings as laid before the Civil Court.
Final Decision: The petition along with the pending application was dismissed with no order as to costs, and the costs imposed in the impugned order were set aside.
JUDGMENT
Tushar Rao Gedela, J. (Oral)
[The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode]
CM APP No. 21010/2023 (for exemption)
1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Application stands disposed of.
CM(M) 678/2023 & CM APP No. 21011/2023 (for stay)
3. Petitioner challenges the order date 10.03.2023 in CS SCJ 77/2017 titled as "Kuldeep Singh vs. Sita Ram" whereby the learned Trial Court has dismissed the application under Order VIII Rule 1A of the CPC, 1908 with cost of Rs. 1,000/-, filed on behalf of petitioner/defendant seeking to place on record certain documents.
4. Mr. Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant submits that the suit is at pre-trial stage, in that, even the issues have not been framed and, therefore, ordinarily any document being sought to be filed by the parties, are liberally allowed and taken on record.
5. Learned counsel also submits, that apart, the documents which were sought to be placed on record, that is, the copy of the order dated 05.05.2022, status report dated 05.05.2022 and copy of the FIR No. 184/2022 dated 08.05.2022 under Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code, registered by the Police Station Safdarjung Enclave, were sought to be placed on record for a very vital reason.
6. According to Mr. Tripathi, the reason for seeking permission to place aforesaid documents on record was that the said status report had recorded that the complainant in that particular FIR, who happened to be the relative of one Ms. Sheila, who was the neighbor of the petitioner and also, admittedly, the tenant of the respondent herein, had categorically stated that the lady, Ms. Sheila, was paying to the respondent herein rent at the rate of Rs. 600/-, in respect of the property which is similarly situated and the petitioner seeks to take support of such contents of the aforesaid documents.
7. According to Mr. Tripathi, learned counsel the said documents become relevant since the contention of the present petitioner is also that the petitioner was paying the rent @ Rs. 600/- per month and not Rs. 3,600/- per month as falsely claimed by the respondent/landlord.
8. Learned counsel submits that it is on that basis that the aforesaid documents are being sought to be placed on record. He also asserts that the said documents would also support his contention that the respondent is not the landlord of the said property.
9. Mr. Sandeep Vishnu, learned counsel appears on advance notice for the respondent and refutes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.
10. Mr. Sandeep Vishnu, learned counsel submits that these documents have no relevance, even remotely, to the contentions raised by the petitioner in his written statement and even otherwise, the Court need not look into documents which are irrelevant to the lis which is pending before the learned Trial Court.
11. This Court has considered the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the parties and also considered the documents, which were sought to be placed on record.
12. At the outset, it is trite law that the documents may be placed on record by the parties provided the same are relevant to the issues or have any remote connection to the pleadings as laid before the Civil Court.
13. In the present case, this Court has carefully scrutinized the written statement as filed by the petitioner before the learned Trial Court and has observed that there is no reference to any of the aforesaid documents or the events occurring therein. In fact there is no reference to the lady Ms. Sheila, at all in the said written statement.
14. The para 4 of the preliminary objections of the written statement, which was referred to by Mr. Tripathi also has no remote connection either to Ms. Sheila or to the documents which are being sought to be filed on record. Just to understand the submission on that aspect by Mr. Tripathi, it would be appropriate to extract para 4 of the written statement as under:
"4. The subject
Sub-rule(3) of Rule 1A of Order 8 of CPC, provides a second opportunity to defendant to produce documents in Court along with written statement, with leave of court.
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....
Written statement set of and counter claim - Provisions of Order 8, Rule 1-A(3) of Code of Civil Procedure are not to condone acts of omissions of defendant nor intent of said provision is to allow d....
Litigants should not suffer due to their counsel’s mistakes, allowing late evidence in exceptional circumstances while stressing the need for expedition in justice.
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.
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
