Full Text
Translation output
i,{l
A-6
% 30.08.20Lr
Present: Mr. Satinder Singh Mathur, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. P.K. Rawal and Mr. A,jay Bansal, Advocates for the respondent.
+CM (M) NO. LL8L120O9 and CM No. L5OO8/2OO9 (stav)
*
Order impugned before this court is the order dated
05.10.2009 vide which application filed by the petitioner under
Order 7 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') seeking permission of the court to place on record certain documents (63 in number) had been dismissed.
The present petition is a probate case filed by the petitioner seeking probate of the Will of her deceased father namely, Atam
Swaroop Khanna dated 07.tL.1996. It is not in dispute that another probate petition has been filed by her respondent- brother namely
Ajya Khanna; both the said petitions had been clubbed together and consolidated; evidence was being led in the main case which was the probate petition filed by Smt. Anju Kapoor; issues had been framed on 18.05.2006; evidence had been led; admittedly, only one witness had been examined till the time when the present application was filed; the said witness was the attesting witness to the Will, the present application under Order 7 RuleL4 of the Code had been filed on 29.09.2009. It is specifically mentioned in this j
2011:DHC:7164 t\ u
/a application that the petitioner is a resident of USA and when she had come to Delhi and was in the process of the renovation of
House No. C-4ll-40, Safdarjung Development Area, where she had last resided with her father, she came across certain documents which are relevant for deciding the controversy in dispute. The list of the aforenoted documents shows that they are three letters purportbd to have been written by her father to her; which are of the period from tgBT to t99L; the other documents relate to certain medical treatments meted out to her father at California which are of the yearJune 2008 at the time when her father visited her in California; other documents are the passports of the petitioner and her deceased father in support of her submission that she travelled along with her father to various countries in the globe; others are the photographs of the petitioner along with her father; these documents also includes a video cassette of a "Mata ki Chowki" dated 18.04.L997. This application was admittedly filed at the time when the evidence of the petitioner was in progress.
The reply to the said aforenoted application has also been perused.
By and large, the contention is that these documents are irrelevant and no fruitful purpose would be served in permitting these documents to be placed on record; a feeble defence has also taken; that the delay in filing the affidavit by way of evidence is for the reason that the petitioner was involved in fabricating the so called
J-
L tl documents. There is, however, no specific denial to the aforenoted. documents; even otherwise if these documents are placed on record, the same will have to be proved in accordance with the law of the evidence; permission even if granted under order 7 Rule
14 of the Code to place on record these documents on record will not take away the onus which is cast upon the petitioner to prove the aforenoted documents. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon two Judgments i.e. lsB Q00g) DLT 670
Asia titled as Pacific Breweries vs. Superior Industries and 2009V
Haldiram Bhu-iiawala & Anr. to support his submission that at this belated stage aforenoted documents cannot be permitted to be taken on record. The reliance upon the aforenoted judgments is misplaced; they are decided on the factual scenario of each case. In fact, the law has been clearly laid down about the provisions of order 7 Rule L4 of the code; discretion is granted to the court to permit documents to be taken on record under order 7 Rule L4 of the Code even after the date stipulated; the only embargo is that these documents which are filed at a belated stage must be necessary for the just decision of this co.se; accordingly, the impugned order in not allowing these documents to be placed on record suffers from an infirmity. Relevancy of these documents has been explained in view of the aforenoted submissions; impugned
{
.f!
'
) r2_
I order is accordingly set aside; documents are taken on record.
This order is passed subject payment of Rs. 10,000/- as cost.
Observations made hereinabove will not affect the merits of the controversy.
Petition is disposed of in above terms. I
I lt-z
J
INDERMEET KAU& J.
AUGUST 30, 201.1. rb
'1,
% 30.08.20Lr
Present: Mr. Satinder Singh Mathur, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. P.K. Rawal and Mr. A,jay Bansal, Advocates for the respondent.
+CM (M) NO. LL8L120O9 and CM No. L5OO8/2OO9 (stav)
*
Order impugned before this court is the order dated
05.10.2009 vide which application filed by the petitioner under
Order 7 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') seeking permission of the court to place on record certain documents (63 in number) had been dismissed.
The present petition is a probate case filed by the petitioner seeking probate of the Will of her deceased father namely, Atam
Swaroop Khanna dated 07.tL.1996. It is not in dispute that another probate petition has been filed by her respondent- brother namely
Ajya Khanna; both the said petitions had been clubbed together and consolidated; evidence was being led in the main case which was the probate petition filed by Smt. Anju Kapoor; issues had been framed on 18.05.2006; evidence had been led; admittedly, only one witness had been examined till the time when the present application was filed; the said witness was the attesting witness to the Will, the present application under Order 7 RuleL4 of the Code had been filed on 29.09.2009. It is specifically mentioned in this j
2011:DHC:7164 t\ u
/a application that the petitioner is a resident of USA and when she had come to Delhi and was in the process of the renovation of
House No. C-4ll-40, Safdarjung Development Area, where she had last resided with her father, she came across certain documents which are relevant for deciding the controversy in dispute. The list of the aforenoted documents shows that they are three letters purportbd to have been written by her father to her; which are of the period from tgBT to t99L; the other documents relate to certain medical treatments meted out to her father at California which are of the yearJune 2008 at the time when her father visited her in California; other documents are the passports of the petitioner and her deceased father in support of her submission that she travelled along with her father to various countries in the globe; others are the photographs of the petitioner along with her father; these documents also includes a video cassette of a "Mata ki Chowki" dated 18.04.L997. This application was admittedly filed at the time when the evidence of the petitioner was in progress.
The reply to the said aforenoted application has also been perused.
By and large, the contention is that these documents are irrelevant and no fruitful purpose would be served in permitting these documents to be placed on record; a feeble defence has also taken; that the delay in filing the affidavit by way of evidence is for the reason that the petitioner was involved in fabricating the so called
J-
L tl documents. There is, however, no specific denial to the aforenoted. documents; even otherwise if these documents are placed on record, the same will have to be proved in accordance with the law of the evidence; permission even if granted under order 7 Rule
14 of the Code to place on record these documents on record will not take away the onus which is cast upon the petitioner to prove the aforenoted documents. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon two Judgments i.e. lsB Q00g) DLT 670
Asia titled as Pacific Breweries vs. Superior Industries and 2009V
Haldiram Bhu-iiawala & Anr. to support his submission that at this belated stage aforenoted documents cannot be permitted to be taken on record. The reliance upon the aforenoted judgments is misplaced; they are decided on the factual scenario of each case. In fact, the law has been clearly laid down about the provisions of order 7 Rule L4 of the code; discretion is granted to the court to permit documents to be taken on record under order 7 Rule L4 of the Code even after the date stipulated; the only embargo is that these documents which are filed at a belated stage must be necessary for the just decision of this co.se; accordingly, the impugned order in not allowing these documents to be placed on record suffers from an infirmity. Relevancy of these documents has been explained in view of the aforenoted submissions; impugned
{
.f!
'
) r2_
I order is accordingly set aside; documents are taken on record.
This order is passed subject payment of Rs. 10,000/- as cost.
Observations made hereinabove will not affect the merits of the controversy.
Petition is disposed of in above terms. I
I lt-z
J
INDERMEET KAU& J.
AUGUST 30, 201.1. rb
'1,
JUDGMENT