Yoginder Kumar Mehta Vs Anil Khanna — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Yoginder Kumar Mehta Vs Anil Khanna — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of permitting the defendant to place on record the documents mentioned in paragraph Nos. 6 & 7 of his application and to lead evidence thereon through his affidavit; admissibility left open with proof required in accordance with law during trial; plaintiff permitted rebuttal evidence restricted to those documents with liberty to seek further documents via application; costs of Rs.10,000/- imposed on the petitioner payable to the respondent before the learned Trial Court on 08.09.2025.

Issue for consideration

Whether the defendant-petitioner should be permitted to place on record the additional documents mentioned in paragraph Nos. 6 & 7 of his application and to lead evidence in respect thereof, notwithstanding dismissal of his applications by order dated 23.01.2024, and on what terms as regards admissibility, proof, and the plaintiff's right of rebuttal.

Court's answer

Permission is granted to the defendant to place on record the documents mentioned in paragraph Nos. 6 & 7 of his application, and he is permitted to lead evidence with respect to those documents by making reference thereof in his affidavit.

Ratio / Principle

All rights and contentions of the parties are left open; the aspect of admissibility of the additional documents has not been touched, and the documents must be proved in accordance with law during the trial.

Key takeaways

The plaintiff is given an opportunity to lead evidence in rebuttal restricted to the additional documents; if producing additional documents is required for such rebuttal, he may move an appropriate application, which the learned Trial Court shall decide in accordance with law after hearing both sides.ratio¶21
For causing delay in the matter, the petitioner is burdened with a cost of Rs.10,000/-, payable to the respondent before the learned Trial Court on the next date of hearing, i.e. 08.09.2025.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Manoj Jain, J.) disposed of CM(M) 1891/2024 filed by the defendant in a 2011 suit challenging the order dated 23.01.2024 dismissing his application for amendment of written statement and his application under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) read with Section 151 CPC seeking to place additional documents (including certified copies of registered sale deeds, described in paragraph Nos. 6 & 7 of his application) on record. During arguments the petitioner, without prejudice, confined his prayer to permission to place the additional documents on record and prove them in accordance with law, noting he had not yet entered the witness-box; the plaintiff, while opposing merit, offered no objection subject to protecting his position by rebuttal evidence. The Court permitted the defendant to place the said documents on record and to lead evidence with respect to them by reference in his affidavit, expressly leaving all rights and contentions open and clarifying that admissibility of the documents was not touched and they would have to be proved in accordance with law during trial. The plaintiff was allowed rebuttal evidence restricted to the additional documents, with liberty to apply for production of further documents for rebuttal, such application to be decided by the learned Trial Court in accordance with law. For causing delay, the petitioner was burdened with costs of Rs.10,000/-, payable to the respondent before the learned Trial Court on the next date of hearing, 08.09.2025. Pending applications were likewise disposed of.

$~3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Date of Decision: 1^st , September, 2025

- CM(M) 1891/2024 & CM APPL. 9438/2024 & CM APPL. 45201/2025

YOGINDER KUMAR MEHTA

.....Petitioner Through: Dr. Anurag Kumar Agarwal, Mr. Umesh Mishra, Mr. Ram Gupta and Mr. Prateek Agarwal, Advocates.

versus

ANIL KHANNA

.....Respondent Through: Mr. Manish Kumar Srivastava, Mr. Moksh Arora, Mr. Santosh R. And Ms. Somiya M., Advocates.

C ORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral)

Petitioner is defending a suit which was filed way back in the year 2011.

When the case was at the stage was moved by the defendant seeking amendment in his written statement and also moved another application under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) read with Section 151 CPC seeking permission to place on record certain additional documents. By virtue of the abovesaid application, the petitioner i.e. defendant No.1 was seeking permission, nter ia l, to place on record some certified copies of registered sale deeds, photocopies of “ Kh gidw ra s i ”. All these documents have been described in paragraph Nos. 6 & 7of the

CM(M) 1891/2024 1

application moved by him.

Both these applications have been dismissed vide order dated 23.01.2024.

During course of the arguments, learned counsel for petitioner/defendant, without prejudice to his rights and contentions, has limited his request to grant of permission to place on record additional documents and to prove them in accordance with law. It is also submitted that the defendant has yet not entered into witness-box.

Learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff submits that the suit has already delayed considerably, and though, there is no merit in the abovesaid limited request, he, in order to ensure that his suit does not get delayed any further, would have no objection if, without prejudice to his rights and contentions, and without admitting the genuineness of the abovesaid documents, one opportunity is be granted to defendant. He also submits that since he has already led his evidence, his interest may also be protected by permitting him to lead evidence in rebuttal qu a the abovesaid additional documents only.

In view of the above and keeping in mind overall facts of the case, the present petition is disposed of with the permission to defendant to place on record the documents as mentioned in paragraph Nos. 6 & 7 of his application and he would also be permitted to lead evidence with respect to said documents by making reference thereof in his affidavit.

All the rights and contentions of the parties are left open and needless to say, the aspect of admissibility of such documents has not even been touched and these documents would be required to be proved in accordance with law, during the trial.

CM(M) 1891/2024 2

The plaintiff would also get an opportunity to lead evidence in rebuttal, restricted to the abovesaid documents and in case, for leading evidence in rebuttal, there would be any requirement of producing additional documents, he would be at liberty to move appropriate application in this regard and the learned Trial Court after giving due opportunity of hearing to both the sides shall decide such application in accordance with law.

For causing delay in the matter, the petitioner herein is burdened with cost of Rs.10,000/-, which would be paid to the respondent before the learned Trial Court on the next date of hearing i.e.08.09.2025.

The petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.

The pending applications also stand disposed of in aforesaid terms.

(MANOJ JAIN) JUDGE

SEPTEMBER 1, 2025/ss/shs

CM(M) 1891/2024 3