The principle that procedure is the handmaid of justice cannot be invoked to fill lacunae in a case or delay proceedings, especially when a party fails to produce available documents at the appropriate stage of a long-pending trial.

O R D E R (ORAL)

1. Petitioner/plaintiff has assailed order dated 17.09.2025 of the learned trial court, whereby his application under Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC and Order XVI Rule 1(3) CPC read with Section 151 CPC (moved subsequent to part hearing of final arguments) was dismissed. Having heard learned senior counsel for petitioner at length, I do not find it a fit case to even issue notice. Rather, the present petition is found to be completely frivolous and filed with oblique purposes to somehow delay disposal of the subject suit, which is pending since the year 2012.

2. Broadly speaking, the circumstances relevant for present purposes are that in the subject suit filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for recovery of possession of immovable property, damages, mesne profits, declaration and permanent injunction, the present respondents/defendants filed a detailed Written Statement and after framing of issues, the suit was taken through full dress trial. During final arguments, the learned trial court in the course of discussion raised certain queries, in furtherance whereof, the petitioner/plaintiff filed an application under Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC and under Order XVI Rule 1(3) CPC read with Section 151 CPC, which application was dismissed by way of the impugned order.

3. Learned senior counsel for petitioner/plaintiff, taking me through the aforesaid contends that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is contended by the learned senior counsel that the subject additional documents were in the custody of Ramjas Foundation, which is a private trust, so the same could not be filed at appropriate stage. Learned senior counsel also contends that the subject additional documents being relevant for the dispute, the trial court ought to have allowed the application. In response to a specific query, the learned senior counsel for petitioner/plaintiff, on instructions, informs that the subject additional documents were earlier filed in another suit bearing no. CS DJ 13114/2016, in which the present petitioner/plaintiff was a party and the subject additional documents were filed there in the year 2016. Further, in response to specific query, learned senior counsel for petitioner/plaintiff submits that the plaintiff applied for certified copies of the subject additional documents on 19.05.2025 and received the same on 22.05.2025. With the help of judicial precedents in the cases titled Sugandhi (Dead) by LRs & Anr. vs P. Rajkumar, (2020) 10 SCC 706 and Pradeep Bailey vs Gilma Daniel , 2025 SCC OnLine Del 4547, learned senior counsel argues that procedure being handmaid of justice, the same cannot prevail over substantive justice. It is also argued by learned senior counsel with the help of a well known maxim that act of court shall not prejudice anyone.

4. Of course, procedure is handmaid of justice. But the question to be probed is whether it would be justice to start de novo trial of the suit pending since the year 2012; where we are at the threshold of the year 2026. It also needs to be understood as to whether in the name of the expression “handmaid of justice”, a party can be allowed to fill in the lacunae in its case. If at this stage, the petitioner/plaintiff is permitted to file the subject additional documents and prove the same by summoning the witnesses, the respondents/defendants also would have to be granted further opportunity, which can be in the form of amending the pleadings, followe