Timeliness and diligence in adhering to court orders are crucial; failure to comply may result in dismissal of application to admit evidence.

ORDER (Oral)

1. This petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assails order dated 22nd December, 2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (the learned ADJ) in CS/DJ/NO. 577733/2016 (Vineet Goel v. Rushmi Goel & ors).

2. The petitioner was the plaintiff in the suit and the respondents were the defendants.

3. The impugned order has been passed on an application filed by the petitioner, as the plaintiff in the suit, to take the certified copies of the original bank statements of the plaintiff's account in the HSBC Bank on record.

4. The application averred that the said documents were necessary to enable the plaintiff to appropriately prosecute the plaint.

5. The aforesaid documents were being sought to be placed on record by the plaintiff in compliance with the direction issued in para 5 of the order dated 19th March, 2015 passed by this Court in CS(OS) 1414/2010 which, consequent to enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial courts, was transferred and re-numbered as CS 577733/2016.

6. This Court had, in paras 4 and 5 of its order dated 19th March, 2015, noted and directed thus:

"4. Having regard to the fact that the defendant no.2 has deposited the entire amount received by it in respect of the three plots along with Interest, the only issue left for adjudication in the present suit is the manner in which the said amount has to be apportioned between the plaintiff and the defendant No, 1.

5. Both the parties are directed to file their affidavits along with the photocopies of the pass books of their respective bank accounts to substantiate their claim that they have deposited amounts from the said accounts from time to time with the defendant No.2 towards allotment of the subject plots. Needful shall be done within four weeks along with a computed statement of account and photocopies of the pass books evidencing that payments were released from the said accounts, while exchanging copies thereof with each other."

(Emphasis supplied)

7. Para 5 of the order dated 19th March, 2015 is clear in its mandate that the documents were required to be filed by the petitioner within four weeks.

8. Mr. Satyendra Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the documents were, in fact, filed by the petitioner, in the suit within the aforesaid period of four weeks as fixed by this Court in the order dated 19th March, 2015, but that the Bank statements of the petitioner's account in the HSBC were, at that time, not available with the petitioner, as the original Bank account statement had been filed by the petitioner before the learned Trial Court in another suit i.e. CS ADJ 1712/2016 (Vineet Goel v. Rushmi Goel), pending before another Court.

9. It is for this reason, submits Mr. Kumar, that these documents could not be filed within the period of four weeks as granted by this Court. The petitioner, however, applied to the court which was in seisin of CS ADJ 1712/2016 to obtain certified copies of the aforesaid bank statements. It is these certified copies that the petitioner sought to place on record before the learned ADJ in the present suit i.e. CS DJ 577733/2016, for which purpose the petitioner moved an application, which stands dismissed by the impugned order dated 22nd December, 2021.

10. The learned ADJ has rejected the petitioner's application on the ground tha