In eviction petitions, the court allowed the petitioner to submit site plans to specify tenant names as essential for adjudication on necessary facts, but rejected admission of other documentary evidence due to lack of due diligence.
Site plans were permitted to be placed on record; counterfoils of rent receipts were rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~13 AND 14
BANSI LAL ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Praveen Suri, Advocate versus MANISHA CHAUHAN ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Sanjay Tripathi, Advocate
BANSI LAL ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Praveen Suri, Advocate versus JAWAHAR SINGH & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Tripathi, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA O R D E R % 09.08.2018
151 CPC filed on behalf of the petitioner was declined, with the matter having been renotified for orders on „Leave to Defend‟ filed by the respondent to the eviction petition arrayed on record as the respondent to the present petition as well. Vide the said application the applicant/petitioner sought to make things more clear in relation to the site plan previously submitted on the record before the learned Trial Court to substantiate his contentions to the effect that there was no alternative accommodation available. The site plan was already on record as filed by the petitioner previously along with the details of the portions though the names of the tenants were not specified.
Works Ltd. (2008) 149 PLR 40 with observations to the effect:
“ 8. As already mentioned above the main objective of the plaintiff is to introduce the said three letters through the present amendment application as well as application filed by the plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC. Under Order 13 Rule 1 CPC it is incumbent upon both the parties to produce the original documents before the settlement of issues in a case. Order 7 Rule 14 CPC also obligates the plaintiff to produce document upon which he has relied upon at the time of the presentation of the plaint and if not produced at that stage then such a document can be received in evidence only with the leave of the Court and not otherwise. For seeking leave of the Court the parties seeking to produce documents at a belated stage must satisfy the Court, that the said documents were not within his knowledge earlier or could not be produced by him at the appropriate time in spite of exercise of due diligence. In the facts of the present case the plaintiff has not given any reasons for not having produced the said documents at the time of the presentation of plaint or even before the settlement of issues. The plaintiff has also not referred to exchange of any such communication between him and Jamila Gupta either in the plaint or in the replication. Out of the three letters two letters were alleged to have been received by the plaintiff form the Jamila Gupta and, therefore, it cannot be said that they were not in possession and power of the plaintiff. While dealing with the scope of Order 7 Rule 14 CPC this Court in the case of Gold Rock World Trade Ltd. vs Veejay Lakshmi Engineering Works Ltd. reported in (2008)149 PLR 40 held as under:-
page 3 of 6
CM(M) 225/2018 & 226/2018
“Consequently , before leave of Court can be granted for receiving documents in evidence at a belated stage, the party seeking to produce the documents must satisfy the court that the said court that the said documents were earlier not within Party’s knowledge or could not be produced at the appropriate time in spite of due diligence. Conditions necessary before leave of court can be granted have not been satisfied. It can cannot be said that the plaintiff was not aware of the documents earlier, or that the same could not be produced in spite of due diligence on the part of the plaintiff. As the plaintiff was not diligent enough at that point of time, this Court is left with no alternative but to reject its request.”
9. In the light of the aforesaid discussion this Court does not find any merit in the said two applications as the incorporation of new facts in the plaint and filing of the said three letters by the plaintiff through I.A. Nos. 2742/2012 and 4595/2012 are with utter dishonest and oblique motives. Both these applications are dismissed with costs of Rs. 15,000/-. ”
allowed to be placed on record now.
time in spite of exercise of due diligence in relation thereto. With these observations the petition and the accompanying application are disposed of.
Copy of the order be sent to the learned ARC Pilot Court (Central).
ANU MALHOTRA, J
AUGUST 09, 2018/sv
CM(M) 225/2018 & 226/2018
page 6 of 6
1 issue framed by the court
Whether leave of court should be granted under Order VII Rule 14 Read with Section 151 CPC to admit site plans after due diligence establishes necessity for adjudication involving vacant premises.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gold Rock World Trade Ltd. v. Veejay Lakshmi Engineering Works Ltd.Applied¶10
Gold Rock World Trade Ltd. v. Veejay Lakshmi Engineering Works Ltd. (2008) 149 PLR 40
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Bansi Lal
Manisha Chauhan
Jawahar Singh & Anr
Anu Malhortra
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 227 of the Constitution invoking the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate civil courts.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Anu Malhortra
Parties & counsel
