Full Text
10th September, 2014 VINOD KUMAR AND ANR. ......Petitioners
Through: Mr. N.M. Popli, Advocate.
Through:
To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
C.M. No.14965/2014(exemption)
JUDGMENT
1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. C.M. stands disposed of. C.M. No.14967/2014 (condonation of delay)
2. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of two days in re-filing the petition is condoned. C.M. stands disposed of. + C.M.(M) No.833/2014 and C.M. No.14966/2014 (stay) 2014:DHC:4545
3. The present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order of the trial court dated 15.7.2014 which has rejected the application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order VII Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for production of documents during the course of evidence. No doubt, the impugned order is a short order however the impugned order does state that documents are not taken on record because they are not relevant for the disposal of the suit.
4. The subject suit is a suit for partition, possession and injunction with respect to the property bearing no.29/3, Ashok Nagar, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi wherein the plaintiffs/petitioners claim their rights through their father Sh. Om Parkash who is said to have been given 40% ownership in the suit property. With respect to the ownership when issues were framed on 16.11.2011, two issues were framed and they are as under:- “1. Whether Smt. Maya Devi during her lifetime had given front portion i.e. 40% of suit property bearing no.29/3, Ashok Nagar, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi to her son Om Prakash by way of an oral family settlement in lieu of costs of construction in the entire property and the remaining 60% portion remained in her possession? If so, its effect? OPP
2. Whether the oral family settlement took place in the year 1980 and 40% of the front portion went to the share of Late Sh. Om Prakash and 60% to the share of Ved Prakash Mehta as pleaded in the written statement? If so, its effect? OPD”
5. Therefore, the issue is not of residence of Sh. Om Prakash in the suit property and to prove which the additional documents were sought to be filed. The issues framed were of the ownership interest of Sh. Om Prakash in the suit property and therefore the trial court was justified in rejecting the documents which only showed residence of Sh. Om Prakash in the suit property.
6. Powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are discretionary and are meant to be exercised in extraordinary situations where grave injustice is caused and which is not so in the present case.
7. Dismissed.
SEPTEMBER 10, 2014 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J Ne