IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the exercise of power under Article 227 is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice.

JUDGMENT

Subramonium Prasad, J.

1. The instant writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the Order dated 13.09.2023 passed by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT).

2. The Respondent herein is a Cable Television Distribution/Multi- System Operator in India. The Petitioner herein is a registered Local Cable Operator and is authorized to carry business as a Cable Operator. The Respondent has a licence to re-transmit the digital cable TV signals of various broadcasters in the territory in which the Petitioner operates and the Petitioner receives signals of television channels and transfer the same through its cable television network to the subscribers.

3. An Interconnection Agreement was executed between the Petitioner and the Respondent on 08.08.2013. On 26.02.2020, the Respondent, which has a licence to re-transmit the digital cable TV signals of various broadcasters in the territory in the Petitioner operates, issued a Legal Demand Notice for a sum of Rs.15,55,222/-. Since the amount was not paid by the Petitioner, the Respondent filed a recovery petition before TDSAT, New Delhi for recovery of the said amount and for the return of 778 Set Top Boxes (STBs). Issues were framed and evidence by way of affidavits has been filed by both the Petitioner and the Respondent. It is stated that when the matter was listed for filing of written arguments, the Respondent filed an application under Order VII Rule 14(3) seeking permission to file some additional documents, which are: (1) Copy of the Inventory List of STBs issued by the Respondent herein to the Petitioner herein; (2) Copy of the Order Request Form cum Receipt 'ORFR' for STBs; (3) Copy of the TRAI Letter dated 13.12.2013 and the Reply on behalf of the Petitioner therein dated 27.12.2013; (4) Copy of the Certificate under section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; and (5) Copy of Board Resolution in favour of Mr. Vikas Rawat.

4. The said application was objected to by the Petitioner herein contending that the said documents ought to have been placed along with the recovery petition and the same cannot be accepted after evidence are concluded and the matter has been kept for filing written arguments by the parties. Reply to the said application states that the said application of the Respondent ought not to be allowed because the Respondent has not disclosed as to whether the documents which are sought to be placed on record were in the power and control of the Respondent or not and why these documents were not disclosed earlier and mentioned in the recovery petition.

5. The TDSAT by the Impugned Order dated 13.09.2023 allowed the application of the Respondent with costs of Rs.2,000/-. The TDSAT was of the opinion that these documents are necessary for adjudication of the dispute between the Parties.

6. Being aggrieved by allowing the application of the Respondent (Petitioner therein) filed under Order VII Rule 14(3) by the TDSAT vide Impugned Order dated 13.09.2023, the Petitioner (Respondent therein) has approached this Court.

7. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that the ingredients of Order VII Rule 14 has not been satisfied and the application ought to have been dismissed. He states that the application filed by the Respondent is nothing but an abuse of the process of law for delaying the dispute between the parties. He states that if all the documents were in the possession of the Respondent, then the same ought to have been filed with the plaint and the documents cannot be accepted after issues have been framed and more particularly when the matter has been placed for filing written arguments.

8. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and perused the material on record.

9. Order VII Rule 14 of the CPC reads as under:

"14. Production of document on which plaintiff sues or relies. - (1) Where a plaintiff sues upon a document or relies upon document in his possession or power in support of hi