Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 1st , September, 2025
45201/2025 YOGINDER KUMAR MEHTA .....Petitioner
Through: Dr. Anurag Kumar Agarwal, Mr. Umesh Mishra, Mr. Ram Gupta and
Mr. Prateek Agarwal, Advocates.
Through: Mr. Manish Kumar Srivastava, Mr. Moksh Arora, Mr. Santosh R. And Ms. Somiya M., Advocates.
JUDGMENT
1. Petitioner is defending a suit which was filed way back in the year
2011.
2. When the case was at the stage of defendant’s evidence, an application 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, inter alia, to place on record some certified copies of registered sale deeds, photocopies of “Khasra girdawari”. All these documents have been described in paragraph Nos. 6 & 7of the CM(M) 1891/2024 2 application moved by him.
3. Both these applications have been dismissed vide order dated 23.01.2024.
4. 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.
5. 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 qua the abovesaid additional documents only.
6. 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.
7. 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 3
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. The petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.
11. The pending applications also stand disposed of in aforesaid terms.
JUDGE SEPTEMBER 1, 2025/ss/shs