The court may allow the introduction of additional documents if reasonable justification for the delay is provided, without determining their genuineness at the initial stage.

JUDGMENT :

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J.

I.A. 42552/2024 (application filed under Order VII Rule 14 CPC)

1. This is an application filed under Order VII Rule 14, read with Section 151 of the CPC, for placing on record additional documents.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant has drawn the attention of the Court to various dates and events, submitting that the documents in question bear direct relevance to the controversy at hand in the present testamentary proceedings. It is contended that these documents could not be placed on record earlier due to extenuating circumstances, including the demise of the original petitioner and the protracted pendency of the application for substitution of his legal heirs.

3. Learned counsel further submits that, during the cross-examination of the original petitioner in the year 2016, a specific query was raised regarding photographs of the marriage ceremony involving the original petitioner, to which he responded that he was not in possession of any such photographs. However, it has now come to light during the pendency of these proceedings that certain photographs were in the possession of the brother-in-law of the original petitioner. Accordingly, by way of the instant application, these photographs are sought to be brought on record by the applicant.

4. The application is strongly opposed by learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 3b, 3c, 3d and 4d. Ms. Ishita Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 3b, submits that immense prejudice would be caused to the respondent if the documents are taken on record at this stage.

5. She has drawn the attention of the Court to a decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Unnikrishnan v. State , 2011 SCC OnLine Mad 2902 , to argue that unless the negatives of the photographs are brought on record, the photographs themselves would have no evidentiary value. She refers to paragraph 51 of the decision contending that in the cameras of the old days, the negative is the primary evidence and photo of the same can be treated only as secondary evidence, whereas if a photograph is clicked through a digital camera, the question of producing the negatives may not arise. Since the impugned photographs are stated to be taken over 40 years ago, according to her, the negatives are primary evidence and thus, essential. It has also been submitted that at this point, the respondent may not be able to cross-examine the petitioner, as the petitioner has expired.

6. Mr. Aneja, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 3c and 3d, has contended that after 35 years from the institution of the suit, the photographs, which are actually of the year 1982, should not be allowed to be taken on record. It is submitted that the introduction of such photographs cannot be treated as bona fide conduct on the part of the petitioner. It is further submitted that there is a reason as to why the brother-in-law of the original petitioner kept these photographs, and the original petitioner himself was not able to produce them before the Court. The genuineness of the documents is therefore doubted, and it is contended that, in view of the decision passed by this Court in Polyflor Limited v. A.N. Goenka , 2016 SCC OnLine Del 2333 , the photographs in question ought not to be taken on record. Reliance has been placed on paragraphs nos. 17 and 18 of the said decision, and those paragraphs have been extensively read out before the Court.

7. Learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 4b and 4c, contends that the petitioner had come to know about the existence of the photographs as early as the year 2018. It is, therefo