Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 09th September, 2024
SUDESH CHHIKARA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Jai Pal Singh, Advocate.
Through: None.
JUDGMENT
1. Petitioner has filed a suit seeking declaration, permanent injunction, possession and damages.
2. During course of the pendency of the above suit, the petitioner/plaintiff moved an application under Order XI Rule 14 read with Section 151 CPC.
3. From the case set up by the plaintiff, it is apparent that she claims herself to be the owner of suit property situated at Uttam Nagar by virtue of documents executed in her favour on 28.12.2003. However, as per the stand taken by the defendant, there was another set of documents which were executed on 30.03.2004 and on the basis of said documents, defendant is claiming himself to be the owner of suit property. CM(M) 3356/2024 2
4. The plaintiff, in the aforesaid backdrop, moved an application seeking production of such documents, allegedly, executed on 30.03.2004. According to plaintiff, he has no knowledge about any such document, much less document executed on 30.03.2004 and he had moved the abovesaid application merely on the basis of the stand taken by the defendant in his written statement.
5. However, when such application was considered by the learned Trial Court, based on the statement made by the defendant that he had misplaced the originals thereof, the application has been dismissed.
6. The stand of the defendant is very clear and obvious.
7. According to him, he does not have the originals of the alleged documents executed on 30.03.2004 and since he has made a specific statement in this regard, he cannot be, therefore, compelled to produce the documents in original of which, as claimed before the learned Trial Court, he does not even have the possession.
8. It will be open to the petitioner/plaintiff to make appropriate request before the learned Trial Court to draw adverse inference against the defendant on account of non-production of the originals.
9. It also cannot be foreclosed that during the course of the proceedings, even the other side may move an application seeking permission to lead secondary evidence.
10. Be that as it may, keeping in mind the specific stand taken by the respondent/defendant, it cannot be said that the impugned order CM(M) 3356/2024 3 suffers from any perversity.
11. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
JUDGE SEPTEMBER 09, 2024