CS(OS) 132/2017

Page 1 of 10

$~6

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

+

CS(OS) 132/2017 & I.A. 8701/2022

BHAG SINGH GAMBHIR AND ORS

..... Plaintiffs

Through:

Mr. Z.A. Siddiqui with

Mr. Aakash Kumar, Advocates

with plaintiff no. 1 in person.

versus

RAMA ARORA

..... Defendant

Through:

Ms. Damini Chawla with

Mr. Anshuman, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

J U D G M E N T

MINI PUSHKARNA, J. (ORAL)

I.A. 8701/2022

1.

This is an application filed on behalf of the plaintiffs under

Section 151 CPC for allowing the plaintiffs to place on record

additional documents.

2.

It is the case of the plaintiffs that during the recording of

evidence of the witness of the defendant – Mr. Ankur Arora, the

plaintiffs presented the ‘returned envelope’ in front of the witness to

verify those addresses. However, the Local Commissioner refused to

entertain/ put those envelopes on record. By way of the present

application, the plaintiffs seek permission to place on record eight

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/002542

CS(OS) 132/2017

Page 2 of 10

number of ‘returned envelopes’ which were received back by the

plaintiffs with the return remarks. It is submitted that the ‘returned

envelopes’, which the plaintiffs want to place on record, are not new

and surprising document, but report the fate of the notices and letters

issued on behalf of the plaintiffs. The said envelopes pertain to the

letters/ speed post receipts that are already on the judicial record.

3.

It has, thus, been prayed on behalf of the plaintiffs that the said

additional documents may be allowed to be placed on record. The

counsel for the plaintiffs has relied upon the following judgments:

(i) Levaku Pedda Reddamma & Ors. Vs. Gottumukkala

Venkata Subbamma & Anr. (Supreme Court) Civil Appeal

No.4096 of 2022, SLP (C) No.7452/2022.

(ii) Jindal Stainless (Hisar) Ltd. Vs. Sourabh Jinal & Ors.,

2022 SCC OnLine Del 1, decision dated 03.01.2022, Delhi

High Court.

(iii) Sugandhi (dead) by legal representatives and Others

vs. P. Rajkumar, (2020) 10 SCC 706.

(iv) Subhash Chander vs. Shri Bhagwan Yadav, 2009 SCC

OnLine Del 3818, Delhi High Court.

(v) Pandharinath L. Bhandari vs. Bharti Trimbak

Bhandari and Ors., 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 447, AIR 2021

Bom 155.

4.

On the other hand, counsel for the defendant has vehemently

opposed the present application on the ground that the documents

sought to be placed on record at the present stage were in the

knowledge of the plaintiffs since before the filing of the suit. The said

documents were always available with the plaintiffs but were never

placed on record. Thus, it has been submitted on behalf of the

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/002542

CS(OS) 132/2017

Page 3 of 10

defendant that the plaintiffs have failed to provide any cogent or

sufficient reason to place the additional documents on record at such a

belated stage. Allowing the plaintiffs to file additional documents will

reopen the trial of the case and cause grave prejudice to the defendant.

In support of her case, the counsel for the defendant has relied upon

the following judgments:

(i) Gold Rock World Trade Ltd. Vs. Veejay Lakshmi

(ii) Polyflor Limited vs. Sh. A.N.Goenka & Ors., reported as

(iii) Shri Ramanand vs. Delhi Development Authority & Anr.,

reported as 2016 SCC OnLine Del 4925.

(iv) Shree Ramesh Kumar and Another vs. Sangeeta Khanna,

reported ILR (2014) II Delhi 1106.

5.

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6.

The documents of which the plaintiffs are seeking permission to

place on record are as follows:

a) Return Envelope dated 21.11.2016 to Smt. Rama Arora at

address C- 28, Ground Floor, Panchsheel Enclave, Delhi-

110017.(ED172981994IN)

b) Return Envelope dated 15.12.2016 to Mr. Ankur Arora at

address B-10, Ground Floor, GK Enclave 2, New Delhi