O R D E R

% 12.08.2024 I.A. 36214/2024

1. This application has been filed by the plaintiffs under Order VII Rule 14(3) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying for leave of this Court to place on record certain documents, which are claimed to be photocopies of their original.

2. It is asserted that the plaintiffs were unable to place on record the copies of the said documents, which are invoices/bills qua the expenses incurred in the construction of the ground floor of the premises bearing No.C-102, Naraina Vihar, New Delhi-110028, as a huge fire had taken place in the official premises of the plaintiffs and several records, including the records pertaining to the present suit property, were lost in the fire. It is claimed that it was only after several endeavours of searching the documents, that the plaintiffs have been able to trace the photocopies of the invoices/bills that were paid by the plaintiff no.1 for the construction of the subject premises.

3. Issue notice.

4. Notice is accepted by Mr.Sameer Kumar, Advocate on behalf of the defendant.

5. He submits that the present application is devoid of any merit. He submits that the said documents, leave alone them not being filed along with the suit, have not even been mentioned in the plaint. It was only when certain uncomfortable questions were put to the witness, Mr.Ramanand Gupta, (PW2) that as an afterthought, the plaintiffs, in order to answer the lacunae in their case, have filed the present application. He places reliance on the judgment of this Court in Polyflor Limited v. Sh. A.N. Goenka & Ors. 2016 SCC OnLine Del

2333.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs reiterates that the documents which are now sought to be placed on record, had been destroyed in the fire that had taken place in the premises of the plaintiffs. He submits that it is only with great endeavour that the plaintiffs were able to trace the photocopies of these documents. He submits that no prejudice shall be caused to the defendant if the present application is allowed and the documents are taken on record.

7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.

8. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiffs praying for following reliefs:

“a) That a Decree of partition may kindly be passed in respect of the basement of Property No. C-102, Naraina Vihar, New Delhi-110028 by raising a wall giving one fourth share of the basement to the Defendant and remaining three fourth share may kindly be given to the Plaintiffs.

b) A Preliminary Decree of partition may kindly be passed and a Local Commissioner may kindly be appointed to divide the basement giving one fourth share to each party to the present suit.

c) A final decree of partition may kindly be passed in favour of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendants.

d) A Decree for recovery of Rs. 26,40,000/- may kindly be passed in favour of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendant along with pendente lite and future interest @ 12% per annum till the date of actual payment is made by the Defendant.

e) Cost of the present suit may kindly be awarded in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant.”

9. There is, therefore, a specific prayer for the recovery of Rs.26,40,000/- along with interest.

10. The plaintiffs in the plaint do not mention anything about these documents or about the said documents being destroyed in a fire.

11. The suit has been pending adjudication for the last almost 9 years. Issues in the present suit were framed vide Order dated 24.08.2017. The PW1 and the PW2 already stand examined. There is merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the defendant that the present application has been filed only as an afterthought when certain uncomfortable questions were put to the PW2 during his cross- examination.

12. In Polyflor Limited (supra), a learned Single Judge of this Court has observed as under:

“16. Order VII Rule 14(3) mandates that:“A document which ought to be pr