Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J.
M/s Intelli Care – Appellant
Versus
M/s Roots Multiclean Ltd. – Respondent
CM(M) 396 of 2023 & CM APPL. 11706 of 2023
Decided On : 18-08-2023
Order 7 Rule 14(3) - Civil Procedure - CPC - [Order 7 Rule 14(3) of CPC] - The court allowed the application filed by the Respondent under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of CPC for placing on record additional documents i.e., three (3) invoices. The court held that the filing of the invoices at a belated stage would not change the claim made in the plaint nor introduce a new cause of action. The invoices were deemed necessary for determining the real issue between the parties. The court exercised supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and found no case for interfering with the impugned order. The existence and relevance of the invoices were not in dispute, and the defendant had full opportunity to deal with the said invoices. The petition was dismissed, and the interim order stood vacated.
Fact of the Case:
The petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order allowing the application filed by the Respondent under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of CPC for placing on record additional documents i.e., three (3) invoices. The civil suit was filed by the Respondent for recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,97,961/- plus interest. The Petitioner, the defendant, argued that the Trial Court erred in allowing the application on the ground that the filing of the said documents is in contravention of Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the filing of the invoices at a belated stage would not change the claim made in the plaint nor introduce a new cause of action. The invoices were deemed necessary for determining the real issue between the parties. The court exercised supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and found no case for interfering with the impugned order. The existence and relevance of the invoices were not in dispute, and the defendant had full opportunity to deal with the said invoices. The petition was dismissed, and the interim order stood vacated.
Issues: The issues revolved around the allowance of the application filed by the Respondent under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of CPC for placing on record additional documents i.e., three (3) invoices, and the contention of the Petitioner that the Trial Court erred in allowing the application on the ground of contravention of Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court exercised supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and found no case for interfering with the impugned order. The existence and relevance of the invoices were not in dispute, and the defendant had full opportunity to deal with the said invoices.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the interim order stood vacated.
JUDGMENT
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J. (Oral)
1. This petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India impugns the order dated 13.02.2023 passed by the Civil Judge-01, South East District, Saket Courts (`Trial Court') in CS SCJ No. 190/2017, allowing the application filed by the Respondent under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (`CPC') read with Section 151 of CPC for placing on record additional documents i.e., three (3) invoices.
1.1. The Petitioner herein is the defendant and the Respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit. The civil suit has been filed by the Respondent on 21.02.2017 for recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,97,961/- plus interest.
1.2. The issues were framed in the civil suit on 02.05.2019 and evidence by way of affidavit was filed on behalf of the Respondent on 14.05.2019. However, before the affidavit of evidence was tendered, the Respondent herein filed an application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of CPC to place on record three (3) invoices i.e., (i) 1111500152 of Rs.1,96,388/-, (ii) 1111500155 of Rs. 80,340/- and (iii) 1411500109 of Rs. 18,735/-, which form the subject matter of the claim of the recovery.
2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Trial Court erred in allowing the application filed by the Respondent on the ground that the filing of the said documents is in contravention of Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC, which governs the ordinary civil suit.
2.1. He states that the invoices which are now sought to be placed on record were neither mentioned in the list of reliance nor was it disclosed by the Respondent at the time of the filing of the plaint that the said documents are not in its power and possession. He states that, in fact, as is admitted on record, the said documents were in the knowledge and possession of the Respondent and the Respondent failed to file these documents along with the plaint.
2.2. He states that the said documents did not even find mention in the affidavit by way of evidence filed on 14.05.2019. He states that therefore, the Trial Court erred in permitting the Respondent to file these invoices by way of an application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of CPC, at this belated stage. He states that the said invoices which have been produced now pre-date the institution of the suit and should have been filed along with the plaint.
2.3. He relies upon the judgments passed by the Courts in Chakreshwari Construction Private Limited vs Manohar Lal, (2017) 5 SCC 212, Bhanumathi vs Sarvothaman, 2010 SCC Online Ker 3737 and Gold Rock World Trade Ltd. vs Veejay Lakshmi Engineering Works Ltd., 2007 SCC Online Del 1140.
3. In reply, the learned counsel for the Respondent states that the claim in the plaint itself is based on these three (3) invoices, which are now sought to be placed on record, as is evident from the averments made in the plaint and more specifically the ledger statement filed along with the plaint. He states that the averments in the plaint have to be read along with the ledger statement. He states that the number, date and amount of the said invoices is duly mentioned in the ledger filed with the plaint.
3.1. He states that it is the case of the Respondent that the Petitioner herein had made part payments towards each of the three (3) invoices as duly reflected in the ledger statement. He states that therefore, the filing of the invoices at this belated stage would neither change the claim made in the plaint nor introduce a new cause of action. He relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Columbia Sportswear Company vs Harish Footwear & Anr., 2017 SCC OnLine Del 8122 and M/s Vikram Roller Flour Mills Ltd. vs M/s KRBL Ltd., 2018 SCC OnLine Del 13407.
3.2. He states that the said documents i.e., invoices, are necessary for determining the real issue between the parties. He states that the Respondent herein has nothing to gain by withholding the invoices and the circumstances in which the said invoices could not be filed initially with t
The court's exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the finding that the existence and relevance of the invoices were not in dispute, and the defendant....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the scope of Article 227 does not warrant interference with the impugned order, and that the Original Side Rules do not apply to the case.
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.
Defendants' failure to show due diligence and timely filing of documents justifies dismissal of their applications under the Code of Civil Procedure and no grounds were shown for High Court intervent....
Unconscionable laches can bar relief in petitions under Article 227; courts will not interfere unless there are grave abuses or derelictions.
The admissibility of additional documents and the allowance of such documents in civil suits and criminal proceedings.
The court emphasized the limited scope of jurisdiction under article 227 of the Constitution of India and the admissibility of additional documents in support of pleadings.
(1) High Court has to exercise its supervisory powers sparingly and in appropriate cases to keep subordinate Courts in their authority. (2) Where a suit is based on documents, furnishing of copy of d....
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
