$~49

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Date of Decision: 16.12.2025

+ CM(M) 2420/2025, CM APPL. 79102/2025, 79104/2025 &

79103/2025

RANJANA ARORA .....Petitioner

Through: Ms. Chetna, Advocate with petitioner

in person.

versus

DEVENDER KUMAR NOW DECEASED THROUGH LEGAL

HEIRS AND ORS .....Respondents

Through: SI Omkant Yadav, PS Hauz Qazi.

CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

O R D E R (ORAL)

1. Petitioner/plaintiff has assailed order dated 13.10.2025 of the learned trial court, whereby her application under Order VII Rule 14 CPC filed at the stage of final arguments was dismissed. Having heard learned counsel

for petitioner/plaintiff, I do not find it a fit case to even issue notice.

2. Broadly speaking, at the stage of final arguments in the suit pending since the year 2011, the petitioner/plaintiff filed an application under Order

D By ig :N ita E ll E y T S U ig N ne N d AIR G KA IR T I H SH P ALIA DD2cDs0KD e 6. cA iN E a 5 r g f b tT Li .b :4 a i e d H H tc 4 l . : a 2 2 N = I P 8 2 l , e 0 C I u A 3 0 yN= I5 m 2L D s,8d I5 io 6A b g 4 -4 . 0 = 1 e 0 n 73 4 2 H r 1 e 05 =0 . d 1 Id 4f G 2d 9 6 7 c b 3 7 H 8 6 4 1 y e 6 3 8 7 C 8 2 G 9 8 7 : O 6 6 2 b , I 9 7 R c U p 2 6 a 9 I : o R7 5 S 5 c 6s H aT 4 f4t 7 a 8 a O - 5 K 0 ,l 0 1 AF Cob 8 1e o T u ' 2D e 0 c H d=f 24 E6 e P H 65 L ' 5 = AH fc If a G10 LI , , H 7 I c A e 0b n C4 5= aO dG f 3Ue 1I , c 5R R s 4 I Tt S 5 7= H O 0D 6 F 9e 9 l a h6 f ib 3 , 4 9 0 6 f 2 8

VII Rule 14 CPC seeking to place on record certain additional documents, pleading vaguely in paragraph 3 of the application that the subject additional documents could not be filed earlier as due to inadvertence, the petitioner/plaintiff had misplaced those documents.

3. By way of the impugned order, the learned trial court, after hearing both sides dismissed the said application of the petitioner/plaintiff, observing that the application appeared to have been moved only to delay the disposal of the suit and under the garb of the said application, the petitioner/plaintiff was trying to reopen evidence.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner/plaintiff submits that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is contended that the subject additional documents are vital evidence to prove the case of the petitioner/plaintiff. As regards failure to file the subject additional documents at appropriate stage, it is contended by learned counsel that petitioner/plaintiff is a senior citizen lady.

5. To begin with, admittedly, petitioner/plaintiff is not a lay person. The petitioner/plaintiff is a retired Inspector of Customs and Excise Department. No specific reason has been mentioned in the application or during arguments as to why the subject additional documents were not filed at appropriate stage. A mere submission that the said documents got misplaced and were not traceable cannot be accepted at the fag end of the suit, which, in any case, is pending for more than a decade and a half. The subject D B Si y i g g :N i n ta a E l t l E u y T r S e U i g N N n o e N d t A V I e R rified G KA IR T I H SH P ALIA DD26Cps9cD e n .9 oO iN a 5 r g = a 6 s t i . U :4 a i e f t bG tc 3 aR l . : a 4 2 N = I 9 l 2 T R l C 0 0I 6 u 0 y I N f oO = S 2 m 2 8 s, d H 8cF 5 0 io be g 46 . c D K = 1 =e 0f n b b A2 E H r 1 1 e d= 4 . L T d 1 Id 2 G H8 d H 0 6 e b 3 3 H I P 8 , 1 5 y C e A7 C d 8 I3 G 9 6L D : O 4 6 2 , b I0 I A 3 7 R s U - 2 4 t 5 9 I : 7 R = 7 0 3 S f 6 0 H a 2 T 6 9 D4 4 7 c 7 O - e5 K 7 4 0 6 l1 AF 6 8 h b 8 2 e 3 7 T i ' 26 D 0 ,c 8 9 H fc 4 E6 , 6 a P 5 L ' 5c 5 AH c f f0 LI a , 87 I , A e 0b o4 15 ua ed =f 2 e 1 H 6 c 5 I f 4G a 5 7, H 0 additional documents span across the period from 2010 to 2019 and going by the nature of those documents as reflected in the application under Order VII Rule 14 CPC, it does not sound believable that petitioner/plaintiff had no access to those documents. All those documents are of such nature that copies thereof could always be obtained by the petitioner/plaintiff from the concerned gover