The court upheld the trial court's discretion in dismissing a belated application for additional evidence, emphasizing the importance of timely document submission in civil proceedings.

1. The petitioner along with his sisters namely Mrs. Urvashi Sharma and Mrs. Poonam Sharma filed a civil suit being CS DJ No. 571/18 before the learned District & Sessions Judge, Rohini Courts, Delhi against (i) their mother Smt. Kanta Devi (ii) real brother Mr. Rajeev Kumar Sharma, (iii) Mrs. Radha Garg and (iv) Mrs. Uma Mittal. The petitioner / plaintiff before the learned Trial Court in the suit inter-alia prayed for following reliefs:-

• Page 2 of 14 (a) Cancel the relinquishment deed registration No. 2455, book No. 1, Vol. No. 3347 on page 10 to 13 on 19.2.2011 in the office of Sub Registrar VI-A, Delhi.

• (b) Sale Deed No. 3564, Book No. I, Volume No. 7416, page 1-8 dated 12.3.2018 with S.R. VI-A Pitampura, Delhi-110036. (c) Sale Deed No. 3565, Book No. 1, Volume No. 7416, page 9-16 dated 12.3.2018 with S.R VI-A Pitampura, Delhi- 110036. (d) Cancel Gift Deed was got executed by Defendant No. 2 from defendant No. 1 of Upper ground floor of the suit property on 27.4.2018 bearing registration No. 6063, Book No. I, Volume No. 7518, page 135-145 dated 27.4.2018 S.R. VI-A Pitampura, Delhi-

110036. (e) Direct the Sub-Registrar VI-A, Delhi to cancel the above documents as null and void i.e. SL No. 1.1 to 1.4. (f) Declare the plaintiffs 3/5th (share) owner of the suit property collectively and individually 1/5 share in the Suit Property.

(g) After declaring the owner if the 3/5th share of the suit property, partition the suit property in the same share ratio.

Factual matrix:

2. The petitioner is the joint owner and in possession of the entire first floor as well as one room on the upper ground floor in the property bearing No. C-208, Majlis Park, Delhi- 110033, admeasuring 111 square yards, built up to the second floor (hereinafter referred to as ―Suit Property‖). The suit property was purchased by the father of the petitioner in 1971 vide the sale deed dated 08.07.1971. Upon purchasing the suit property, the father of the petitioner constructed the ground floor as well as a tin shed and a bathroom on the first floor. However, the father of the petitioner expired intestate on 18.11.2003. Page 3 of 14

3. The father of the petitioner was survived by his wife Smt. Kanta Sharma (respondent no. 1), the elder son Bal Krishan Sharma (petitioner), the younger son Sh. Rajeev Kumar Sharma (respondent no. 2) and two daughters Smt. Urvashi Sharma and Smt. Poonam Sharma (plaintiffs before the learned Trial Court). As per the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 , the properties devolved upon the aforementioned legal heirs of the deceased.

Along with the said property, other movable and immovable property amounting to approximately Rs. 22,00,000/- are with respondent no.1. An ancestral property bearing No. C-588, Street No.12, Majlis Park, Delhi- 110033 was also left with the respondent no.1, however a settlement was arrived at for the same and the proceeds of such settlement amounting to Rs.25,00,000/- were kept in the possession of respondent no.1 & 2 for the purpose of safekeeping as the said sum was required for construction of the suit property.

4. Respondent nos. 1 & 2 by playing fraud and misrepresenting the petitioner and his sisters (other plaintiffs) got signed a relinquishment deed dated 19.02.2011 registered with the Sub-Registrar VI-A vide registration no. 2455, book no. – I, vol. No. 3347 at page no. 10-13. By virtue of the said relinquishment deed, respondent no. 1 became the sole owner of the suit property. The respondent nos. 1 & 2 had obtained signatures of the petitioner and his sisters on some documents by representing that respondent no. 2, who was unemployed at that time and in order to run some business, required a loan. The petitioner and his sisters not sensing any Page 4 of 14 malice or malafide, signed some papers on the asking of respondent nos. 1

& 2 for respondent no. 2 to secure a loan from a bank.

5. Thereafter, the abovementioned legal heirs as per the family requirement, deemed it fit to pull down the