The court emphasizes the importance of timely submission of evidence and disallows late applications without satisfactory explanations, reinforcing the principle of expeditious trial in litigation.

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 41 Rule 27 - Applications for additional evidence - Petitioners challenged the order of dismissal of applications to place additional documents on record, citing delays of 8 years and 5 years without reasonable explanations - Court emphasized the need for expeditious trial and found intent to delay adjudication. (Paras 6, 10, 18, 19)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners sought to include evidence from other litigation to support their claims, including an affidavit and a sale deed, which were dismissed for lack of relevance and undue delay. The suit has been pending since 1998. (Paras 1, 2, 7, 14)

Findings of Court:
The court found no merit in the petition, affirming the dismissal of the applications and recognizing the history of the case as indicative of the petitioners’ intent to delay proceedings. (Paras 18, 20)

Issues: The main issues included the admissibility of additional documents and their relevance to the current litigation, as well as the delay in filing applications. (Paras 6, 10, 12)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioners’ failure to provide substantial reasons for the delay and the lack of direct relevance of the proposed evidence justified the dismissal of the applications, thereby upholding the principle of expeditious trial. (Paras 10, 12, 16)

Result: Petition dismissed with costs imposed on the petitioners.

Table of Content
1. challenge to prior order regarding additional documents (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. lack of explanation for delayed applications (Para 4 , 5)
3. withdrawal of challenge on first application (Para 6 , 8)
4. relevance of evidence and witness examination (Para 9 , 10)
5. delayed applications aimed at prolonging proceedings (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
6. dismissal of petition and cost imposed (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)

JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J. (Oral)

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 tran

Click Here to Read the rest of this document