Ranjana Arora Vs Devender Kumar Now Deceased through Legal Heirs and Ors.

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.

¶12

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

¶13

CM(M) 2420/2025

¶14

GIRISH KATHPALIA Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2025.12.16 17:22:54 -08'00'

¶15

Page 1 of 4 pages

¶16

Signature Not Verified

¶17

Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:1 6.12.2025 17:25:28

¶18

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.

¶19

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.

¶20

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.

¶21

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

¶22

Page 2 of 4 pages

¶23

GIRISH KATHPALIA Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2025.12.16 17:22:36 -08'00'

¶24

CM(M) 2420/2025

¶25

Signature Not Verified

¶26

Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:1 6.12.2025 17:25:28

¶27

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 government authorities.

¶28

Further, there is not even a whisper as to when, how and from where the subject documents got traced out.

¶29

I find substance in the opinion of the learned trial court that petitioner/plaintiff is trying to reopen the entire case at the stage of final arguments. If the petitioner/plaintiff is granted opportunity to file the subject additional documents at this stage, she would have to be granted an opportunity to prove the same in accordance with law and consequently, the other side also shall have to be granted similar opportunity.

¶30

There is another aspect. It appears that one of the subject additional documents is a sale deed, pertaining to which an application was filed in the year 2015 but that application was dismissed by the trial court and that order having not been challenged has attained finality.

¶31

In view of the aforesaid, I am unable to find any infirmity, much less perversity in the impugned order that would call for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, so the same is upheld.

¶32

GIRISH KATHPALIA Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2025.12.16 17:22:22 -08'00'

¶33

CM(M) 2420/2025

¶34

Page 3 of 4 pages

¶35

Signature Not Verified

¶36

Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:1 6.12.2025 17:25:28

¶37

The petition is totally devoid of merit, so the petition and the accompanying applications are dismissed.

¶38

Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,
2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec4
GIRISH 5569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca,
ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638,
postalCode=110003, st=Delhi,
serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d155
KATHPALIA 70996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e2
6fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA
Date: 2025.12.16 17:22:05 -08'00'

¶39

GIRISH KATHPALIA (JUDGE)

¶40

DECEMBER 16, 2025/ ry

¶41

CM(M) 2420/2025

¶42

Page 4 of 4 pages

¶43

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:1 6.12.2025 17:25:28

Ranjana Arora v. Devender Kumar Now Deceased through Legal Heirs and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjana Arora v. Devender Kumar Now Deceased through Legal Heirs and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Col Ajay Ahlawat & Anr. Vs Sudhir Kumar Windlass

Ansal Housing Limited Vs Vikas Jain & Ors.

Om Prakash Vs Brahm Singh

Richa Sharma Vs Nitin Sharma

General Manager, Telecom District Bharat Sanchar Nigarn Ltd. Vs Vichitra Constructions Pvt. Ltd.

Tilak Raj Vs State (Gnct of Delhi) & Ors.

Narinder Kumar Jain (Deceased) through His Lrs Vs Simmi Jain and Anr.

Rajeev Jain & Anr. Vs Gulshan Kumar Jain (Since Deceased) Hrough His Lr

Col Ajay Ahlawat & Anr. Vs Sudhir Kumar Windlass

Ansal Housing Limited Vs Vikas Jain & Ors.

Om Prakash Vs Brahm Singh

Suresh Sharma & Ors. Vs Gaurav Sharma & Ors.

Technomax Infosolutions & Anr. Vs Avha Lifesciences Pvt. Ltd.

Hanumant Polymers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Veritas Industries Pvt. Ltd.