JUDGEMENT

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J. I.A. 19152/2022 (u/O VII Rule 14 r/w Section 151 of CPC, 1908)

1. The Application under Order VII Rule 14 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”) has been filed on behalf of the applicants/respondent Nos. 2 and 4 seeking leave to place certain documents on record.

2. It is submitted that the documents sought to be placed on record, pertain to the earlier litigation undertaken vide CS No. 3216/1988 (now CS No. 20/2016) presently pending adjudication before the learned Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, which are as under:

(a) A copy of I.A. No. 9629 of 2002; (b) Certified copy of Order dated 09.12.2003; (c) Certified copy of amended Written Statement dated 08.10.2002, filed by Shri V.K. Sodhi; and (d) Certified copy of the cross-examination dated 24.02.2018 of Nalini Lal, in CS 3216 of 1988.

3. It is submitted that these documents could not be inadvertently placed on record earlier and now are sought to be exhibited in the testimony of R2W1/Smt. Manjula Sodhi and may be permitted to be taken on record.

4. The learned Counsel for the respondents Nos. 2 and 4 has placed reliance on the case of Sugandhi (Dead) by Legal Representatives and Another v. P. Rajkumar represented by his power agent Imam Oli (2020) 10 SCC 706; Mohanraj Rupchand Jain alias Chhajed v. Kewalchand Hastimal Jain and others 2007 (1) Mh.L.J.; Nurrallah Kamruddin Velijee v. Vishwambhar Kashinath Palekar 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 149; The Tripura Modern Bank Ltd. v. Sushil Chandra Dutta and others 1952 SCC OnLine Gau 75; Ram Saran and another v. Bansi Lal and another 1953 SCC OnLine HP 16 in support of her application under Order VII Rule 14, CPC.

5. The petitioner in her Reply has objected to the aforesaid documents being tendered for the first time in the affidavit of evidence of R2W1/Smt.

Manjula Sodhi on the ground that the said documents cannot be permitted to be taken on record at this belated stage. Serious prejudice would be caused to her if the said documents are permitted to be taken on record as the entire evidence of the petitioner already stands concluded.

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the case of Polyflor Limited v. A.N. Goenka and Ors. 2016 (156) DRJ 600 to assert that additional documents cannot be filed at such a belated stage without any justifiable reason.

7. The applicants/respondent Nos. 2 and 4 have vide their Rejoinder reiterated their contentions made in the application and have further stated that the said documents were always in knowledge and possession of the Petitioner and the respondents are seeking to bring them on record with the sole purpose of showing the stand taken by the Petitioner before the Ld.

ADJ, Patiala House Courts in CS No. 20 of 2016. Thus, the application is liable to be allowed.

8. Submissions heard.

9. The respondent Nos. 2 and 4 have sought to produce certain documents by preferring the application under Order VII Rule 14, CPC.

10. The provision of Order VII Rule 14 of CPC creates a bar on production of additional documents, if the same have not been mentioned in the List of Documents annexed to the plaint and produced at the time of filing the same, unless the leave of the court is sought.

11. In the case of MohanRaj (Supra) the Bombay High Court discussed the object of Order VII Rule 14, CPC and observed that the provision is enacted to assist the parties and the Courts in the manner of production of documentary evidence while adjudicating the disputes, to arrive at an appropriate decision on the matter. In this regard, the provision is to be construed liberally and a pedantic approach should not be taken while enforcing the provision of law. A documentary evidence which is relevant and material for the just and appropriate decision, should be allowed to be produced and merely because the party failed to enter the same in the list annexed to the plaint, it s