w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

Kirpal Chand v/s Skipper Construction Company (Private) Limited

    Suit Appeal No. 151 of 1996
    Decided On, 01 May 2002
    At, High Court of Delhi
    For the Appearing Parties: Kuljit Raval, Sandip Sethi, Sanjay Jain, V.K. Malik, Advocates.

Judgment Text

(1) BY this application, the plaintiffs seek to file certified copies of the records of CWP. Nos. 2354/03, 1529-A/03 and 280/90, wherein the defendants 1 and 2 are said to have been parties to the proceedings. The application is being opposed on behalf of the defendants on the ground that no good cause is shown for not filing the same with the suit or at any stage before settlement of issues in spite of the certified copies having been in power and custody of the plaintiffs. On behalf of the defendant No. 3, it is contended that the defendant No. 3 was not a party to the said proceedings and by filing the certified copies of the records in question, the defendant No. 3 cannot be taken by surprise.

(2). In the application, no specific reason for not filing these copies with the suit or before settlement of issues is stated but the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs takes me through the plaint to point out that there is already a mention of the said writ petitions.

(3). By filing the certified copies in question, the plaintiffs seek to prove various instances of lapses on the part of defendant No. 1, which eventually accounted for cancellation of the agreement in its favor by the plaintiff before approaching this Court to seek possession by way present suit. There is no argument on behalf of the defendants that the certified copies in question are not relevant for a fair and just decision on the matter in controversy.

(4). Learned counsel for the plaintiff, referring to a decision of this Court in "man. Gen. A. K. Luthra vs. Malkit Mamrath", 1993 (3) Delhi Lawyer 323, contends that where the genuineness of the documents to be filed is not questionable and the same are otherwise relevant for fair and just adjudication on the matter in controversy, the same can be allowed to be brought on record at any stage of the proceedings.

(5). On the other hand, learned counsel for defendants 1 and 2 has placed his reliance on another decision of this Court in "ms. Arati Bhargava vs. Kavi Kumar Bhargava", 79 (1999) DLT 563, to stress the point that unless good cause is shown for not producing documents, the same cannot be allowed to be brought on record. This was a case where a photocopy of the document was sought to be placed on record to prove the same. Apart from noticing that the application seeking permission to place that document on record was belated, the other grounds which weighed in rejecting the application were that the document did not inspire confidence, and being a photocopy of a copy, the same was held otherwise inadmissible in evidence, and it was, accordingly, noted that it would serve no useful purpose to take the same on the file of the Court.

(6). No doubt the application does not show reasons explaining the plaintiffs' omission to file the records in question with the suit or at any stage prior to settlement of issues, since the same appear to be relevant for just and fair decision on the matter in controversy and no prejudice is likely to be caused to the defendants on account of permission to bring the same on record being granted, there appears no rea

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
son to decline the permission particularly when the plaintiffs are still in the process of examining their witnesses. In the circumstances, the certified copies of the records of the three writ petitions, filed with the application, are admitted on record, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 3,000. 00. (7). The application stands disposed of.