Delhi High Court
Pradeep Bailey vs Gilma Danial on 18 June, 2025
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on: 04th February, 2025
Pronounced on: 18th June, 2025
CM(M) 1533/2023, CM APPL. 48374/2023 STAY & CM
APPL. 48376/2023
PRADEEP BAILEY ....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Brijballabh Tiwari and Mr.
Anish Shrestha, Advs alongwith
petitioner in person
versus
GILMA DANIEL .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Arvind Bhatt and Mr.
Kuber Giri, Advs.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
JUDGMENT
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.
1. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
[“CPC“], seeking to set aside the order dated 17.05.2023 [“impugned
order”], passed by learned District Judge in Suit bearing No. CIV.DJ
No. 697/2019, whereby, the learned trial court dismissed the
application under Order 7 Rule 14 read with Section 151 CPC, filed
by the petitioner/plaintiff.
2. Shorn of all unnecessary details, the brief facts leading to the
filing of the present petition are that in the year 2017, petitioner filed a
CM(M) 1533/2023 Page 1 of 13
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:18.06.2025
14:50:04
suit for recovery of possession, permanent & mandatory injunction as
well as mesne profit in respect of portion of property bearing No. WZ-
5A/31, Vishnu Garden, New Delhi [“Suit Property”] except one shop
against the respondent, who was allegedly allowed to reside in the
property as a licensee. Respondent filed the written statement on
18.12.2019. Thereafter, petitioner filed replication along with the
additional documents and petitioner also filed an application under
Order 7 Rule 14 read with Section 151 CPC to place on record the
additional documents. Respondent filed reply to the said application,
stating that the documents were not filed along with plaint and that
allowing them to be placed on record now, would cause irreparable
loss to the respondent, as she will not have an opportunity to rebut
such documents. The trial court vide impugned order dated
17.05.2023, dismissed the application on the ground that petitioner
failed to justify the non-filing of the documents at an appropriate
stage. Not being satisfied with the impugned order, petitioner filed the
present petition. The relevant extract of the impugned order dated
17.05.2023 is reproduced below:-
“The plaintiff seeks to place on record the payment slips of
the cemetery and the expenses towards grave. However it is noted
that both the receipts in the name of plaintiff is written in
completely different handwriting from the handwriting of other
portion of the receipts which prima facie shows that the name is
filled later on. Moreover, the reasons for placing on record the said
receipt are not explained in the application.
As regards, the property tax receipts in some of which name
of plaintiff is mentioned as property owner are datedbetween2012
to 2017. However, the application is silent why the said documents
were not placed with the plaint and why they were not mentioned
in the replication, even though the defendant has claimed herCM(M) 1533/2023 Page 2 of 13
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:18.06.2025
14:50:04
ownership and also claimed that she was paying the house tax etc.
in respect of the suit property.
The plaintiff has also sought permission to place on record
copies of two WILLs which are dated 19.02.2000 and 24.08.2000.
However, the application is silent why the said documents were not
filed with the plaint. During arguments counsel for plaintiff had
stated that the said documents could not be filed due to negligence
of previous counsel of the plaintiff. However, the said submissions
does not find mention in the application or the plaintiff has not
placed on record any action taken against the said negligence of his
previous counsel.
The documents pertaining to the stated business of tent
house being run by plaintiff that the said documents were
untraceable.
The documents regarding pay slip of Smt. Roma Bailey
which is stated to be wife of plaintiff, are of no consequences to the
present proceedings. Similarly the documents of Delhi Jal Board
and Electricity department are also having no relevancy to the
present proceedings. The application is also silent for what purpose
the plaintiff wants to place on record the electricity and water bills.
The power Under Order 7 Rule14 CPC is to be exercised
only when plaintiff is able to show that the said documents were
either not in his possession at the time of filing of the suit or said
documents were not within his knowledge. Merely stating that due
to negligence of previous counsel, the documents could not be
placed on record that too after filing of replication and framing of
issues when the matter has reached the stage of plaintiff evidence,
is apparently an attempt to improve the case of the plaintiff. The
judgments cited by Ld. counsel for plaintiff have no applicability to
the facts of the present case as in the matter of Kapil Kumar
Sharma (supra) as Hon’ble Supreme court has allowed the
additional documents to be taken on record when the matter has
reached the stage of cross examination. However, in the present
case the plaintiff has failed to justify the reasons for not filing the
documents on record. Similarly in the judgment of Nishant Hannan
& Ors. (supra) is also not giving applicability to the facts of the
present application.
Accordingly, I am satisfied that plaintiff has failed to justify the
non-filing of the documents at the appropriate stage of trial and
therefore, the application U/o 7 Rule 14 CPC stands dismissed.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned
order dated 17.05.2023 passed by the trial court is arbitrary, illegal and
CM(M) 1533/2023 Page 3 of 13
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:18.06.2025
14:50:04
against the facts and laws applicable as the court failed and ignored to
consider/appreciate relevant facts and documents produced by the
petitioner. He asserts that petitioner has countered the false averments
of the respondent in her written statement on the basis of the relevant
documents like electrician license, membership of All Delhi Tent
Traders Welfare Association, house tax receipts etc. He further
submits that some documents like Wills dated 19.09.2000 &
24.08.2000 were not in power and possession of the petitioner at the
time of filing of the plaint and were handed over by the sister in law of
the petitioner in May 2022 and hence were not filed with the plaint. It
is submitted that these documents are crucial for petitioner to prove
his case and counter the averments of the respondent. Further, since
the case is at an initial stage and evidence has yet not begun, no
prejudice would be caused by allowing the application for filing
additional documents, which are stated to be material documents for
the purpose of proper adjudication of the suit.
4. Petitioner has placed reliance on the case of Kapil Kumar
Sharma Vs. Lalit Kumar Sharma and Anr., in Civil Appeal
No.2330/2009, arising out of SLP (C) No.17249 of 2008 and Nishant
Hannan & Ors Vs. South Delhi Municipal Corporation, in CM
(Main) No.262/2014.
5. Learned counsel for respondent not only advanced oral
arguments but also supplemented them by filing written submissions.
Per contra, he has submitted that by operation of Will dated
17.11.1994, the deceased mother of the parties bequeathed the suit
CM(M) 1533/2023 Page 4 of 13
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:18.06.2025
14:50:04
property to the respondent, and therefore, she is the owner of the
property. She allowed her brother i.e. the petitioner to live in part of
the suit property as a licensee. It has been submitted that petitioner
filed replication/reply to the written statement of the respondent along
with fresh documents including the copies of the alleged Wills dated
19.09.2000 & 24.08.2000, such documents were filed belatedly after
five years of litigation between the parties. It is further submitted that
petitioner has not given any justifiable and acceptable explanation for
not filing the said documents with the plaint, and thus, the application
has rightly been dismissed by the trial court.
6. Respondent has placed reliance on the following judgments:-
Asia Pacific breweries v Superior Industries 2009-158 DLT 670,
Gold Rock World Trade Ltd v Veejay Lakshmi Engineering Works
Ltd. 2007-143 DLT 113, Shri Ramanand v Delhi Development
Authority High Court of Delhi in CM(M) 374/2015 & CM
No.7905/2015 on 11.08.2016, Polyflor Limited v Sh. A.N. Goenka
High Court of Delhi in O.A. No.84/2016 (CS(OS) 504/2004) on
18.04.2016 and Haldiram (India) Pvt Ltd v Haldiram Bhujiawala
2009-5 ILR(Del) 503.
7. The details of the additional documents which were filed by
the petitioner with the replication and were sought to be placed on
record by filing the application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC are as
under:-
i. Pay Slip issued by Indian Christian Cemetery dated
18.01.2004.
ii. Pay slip issued by Penzy Morgan dated 18.01.2004.
CM(M) 1533/2023 Page 5 of 13
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:18.06.2025
14:50:04
iii. Membership issued by All Delhi Tent Traders Welfare
Association dated 29.09.1993.
iv. Property Tax Receipts of the suit property.
v. Copy of Will dated 19.09.2000.
vi. Copy of Will dated 24.08.2000.
vii. Copy of certificate issued from the office of Electrical
Inspector, Delhi Administration in favour of the plaintiff.
viii. Copy of Electricity and Water bills of the suit property.
ix. Copy of the Last Pay Certificate and pension of the plaintiff’s
wife.
x. Copy of the voucher, photographs of Bailey Tent House and
the slips.
8. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that these
documents could not be placed on record inadvertently and now are
sought to be taken on record.
9. The Court has considered the rival submissions and has
perused the material on record. As per the CPC (Amendment) 1999, if
any document or a copy thereof could not be filed with the plaint
under this Rule, it could not be allowed to be received in evidence on
behalf of the plaintiff at the hearing of the suit. There was embargo on
the power of the court and any such document could not be received in
evidence at a later stage. This provision was found too harsh and so
the provision has been modified by the CPC (Amendment) Act, 2002
and now such document may be received in evidence with the leave of
the court, which the court shall grant in genuine cases.
10. Before dealing with the rival submissions, it is apposite to
refer Order 7 Rule 14 CPC. This provision mandates that if plaintiff
relies on a document in their suit, they must produce it in court and
file it with the plaint. Order 7 Rule 14 CPC reads as under:-
CM(M) 1533/2023 Page 6 of 13
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:18.06.2025
14:50:04
“Rule 14: Production of document on which plaintiff sues or
relies.- (1) Where a plaintiff sues upon a document or relies upon
document in his possession or power in support of his claim, he
shall enter such documents in a list, and shall produce it in Court
when the plaint is presented by him and shall, at the same time
deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the plaint.
(2) Where any such document is not in the possession or power of
the plaintiff, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose possession
or power it is.
(3) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the
plaintiff when the plaint is presented, or to be entered in the list to
be added or annexed to the plaint but is not produced or entered
accordingly, shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in
evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit.
(4) Nothing in this rule shall apply to document produced for the
cross-examination of the plaintiffs witnesses, or handed over to a
witness merely to refresh his memory.”
11. A plain reading of Order 7 Rule 14 CPC makes it clear that
plaintiff has to present the relevant documents with the plaint.
Subsequently, such documents cannot be presented without the leave
of the court. The provision thus creates a bar on production of
additional documents if the same have not been mentioned in the list
of documents annexed to the plaint and produced at the time of filing
the same, unless the leave of the court is sought. This principle was
reiterated by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Polyflor Limited
Vs. Sh. A. Goenka & Ors. in OA No. 84/2016 CS (OS) 504/2016.
12. The Coordinate Bench of the this Court in Haldiram (India)
Pvt. Ltd. (supra) held that it is a discretionary power of the court to
allow belated filing of a document. The relevant portion of the
judgment is reproduced as under:
“21. In any event, both under the old Order 7 Rule 18 sub-rule (1)
and new Order 7 Rule 14 sub-rule (3) CPC a new document can
certainly be produced on behalf of plaintiff at the final hearing ofCM(M) 1533/2023 Page 7 of 13
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:18.06.2025
14:50:04
suit, but the same has to be done with leave of the Court. It is not
that the plaintiff has a legal vested right to file a document at a
belated stage i.e. at the final hearing of the suit. The said provision
gives a discretionary power to the Court, which needless to say has
to be exercised in a reasonable and legal manner. In fact, this power
has to be exercised sparingly and for some overpowering reason
and not as a matter of routine. If petitioners‟ interpretation of Sub
Rule 3 is accepted, it would make it impossible for the trial court to
conclude the hearing of any suit.”
13. It is no more res-integra that the rules of procedure are
handmaid of justice and should not come in the way of delivering
substantial justice. In the case of Sugandhi (dead) by Lrs. & Anr.
Vs. P. Rajkumar, represented by his power agent Imam Oli (2020)
10 SCC 706, the Apex Court discussed the factors which must be
considered while granting permission to produce additional documents
under Section 8 Rule 1-A CPC. It was observed that procedure is
handmaid of justice. If the procedural violation does not cause
prejudice to the adversary party, procedural and technical hurdles
should not come in the way of the courts while doing substantial
justice. Thus, the courts should take a lenient view while deciding an
application under Order 8 Rule 1-A CPC.
14. In Mrs. Nalini Lal Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Others,
TEST.CAS.22/2009, a Coordinate Bench of this Court while allowing
the application under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC, held that the said
provision allows for the submission of additional documents if the
Court grants leave and if such documents are necessary for resolving
the real issues between the parties. It was again emphasized that
procedural rules should not hinder substantive justice.
CM(M) 1533/2023 Page 8 of 13
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:18.06.2025
14:50:04
15. In the case of Mohanraj Vs. Kewalchand Hastimal Jain &
Ors. AIR 2007 Bom. 69, the Bombay High Court discussed the object
of Order 7 Rule 14 CPC and observed that the provision is enacted to
assist the parties and the courts in the manner of production of
documentary evidence while adjudicating the disputes, to arrive at an
appropriate decision on the matter. In this regard, the provision is to be
construed liberally and a pedantic approach should not be taken while
enforcing the provision of law. A documentary evidence which is
relevant and material for the just and appropriate decision should be
allowed to be produced and merely because the party failed to enter
the same in the list annexed to the plaint, it should not be ignored
unless the plaintiff can show that there would be real prejudice caused
if such permission is granted.
16. Coming back to the present petition, the question for
consideration is whether petitioner is to be allowed to place on record
the documents, as detailed in the application under Order 7 Rule 14
CPC, which admittedly, were not filed with the plaint. In order to
understand the requirement of such documents, a short narration of the
factual narrative is essential.
17. As per the averments in the plaint filed by the petitioner, the
mother of the petitioner sold property bearing No. WZ-5A/31, Vishnu
Garden, New Delhi, measuring 200 sq. yards to the plaintiff for a total
consideration amount of Rs. 2 lakhs vide Agreement to Sell, GPA,
Will, Receipt and Possession Letter dated 16.10.2003 in favour of the
petitioner. It has been asserted in the plaint that the mother of the
CM(M) 1533/2023 Page 9 of 13
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:18.06.2025
14:50:04
petitioner cancelled all her previous Will(s) in respect of the above-
mentioned property before the Sub Registrar-II vide cancellation of
Will dated 16.10.2003 and thus after the death of his mother,
petitioner became the owner of the aforesaid property.
18. The case of the plaintiff has been that respondent was
allowed to reside in a portion of the property as a “licensee” and even
after the death of their mother, at her request, respondent was allowed
to reside in the portion of the property till the marriage of her
daughter, but she did not vacate the property after the marriage of her
daughter.
19. In her written statement, respondent took the plea that
petitioner did not do any work and preferred to sit idle at home. His
behaviour towards his parents was not good. He survived on his
parents pension or on the salary of the respondent. Her father got him
opened an electrical repair workshop in front of Vishnu Garden house
but he never took any interest in the said business. Due to careless
attitude of the petitioner, the said business suffered losses and
ultimately, the father of the petitioner had to close down the said
business and the shop was rented out to a tenant. It has been further
asserted in the written statement that the expenditure of marriage of
petitioner was borne by the respondent. Even after getting married, he
did not do any regular work and was surviving on his wife’s income.
Neither petitioner nor his wife took care of old parents and did not
contribute even a single penny towards the household expenses and all
expenses of the old parents were taken care by the respondent.
CM(M) 1533/2023 Page 10 of 13
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:18.06.2025
14:50:04
Petitioner and his wife used to abuse and even use to physically
assault the parents of petitioner. In view of such conduct, the mother
of the petitioner debarred the petitioner from succeeding to her
properties vide an affidavit dated 17.11.1994 and publication in the
newspaper “The Statesman” on 15.12.1994. According to the
respondent, she is the owner of the suit property by virtue of the Will
of her mother dated 17.11.1994.
20. In replication, petitioner states that respondent is relying upon
the cancelled Will dated 17.11.1994, which was got executed from the
mother under misguidance and misrepresentation of the respondent.
He has submitted in his replication that he is an electrician and is a
registered license holder with Government of NCT of Delhi since
1982 and has been doing the work of repairing. Apart from the same,
he is also engaged in the business of tent house. His wife is a nurse in
Kalawati Hospital and drawing handsome salary. He was never sitting
idle and was not dependent on the pension of his parents or the salary
of the respondent. It has also been stated that petitioner took every
care for the treatment of his mother and after her death, it was the
petitioner who incurred all the expenses of her funeral and prayer
meeting and that he is having the bills of expenditure incurred on the
last ceremonies of his mother. It has also been submitted that
petitioner has been paying the house tax regularly since the purchase
of this property on 16.10.2023 and is also in receipt of payment slips
issued by Municipal Corporation of Delhi. According to him, it is the
CM(M) 1533/2023 Page 11 of 13
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:18.06.2025
14:50:04
petitioner who has been paying the electricity and water bills
regularly.
21. The documents referred to in the application under Order 7
Rule 14 CPC are for the purpose of showing that petitioner was not
sitting idle and was indulging in work and was earning income, as also
for showing that he has been making the payment of house tax of the
property since after its purchase and was making payment of
electricity and water bills and was also looking after his mother. The
trial court failed to appreciate that additional documents sought to be
placed were relevant to counter the averments of the respondent, as
mentioned in the written statement. Undisputedly, the documents are
relevant. Some of the documents are in fact public documents. The
authenticity and genuineness of the documents can be considered after
granting an opportunity to the petitioner to prove the same. The
contention of the petitioner that Wills dated 19.09.2000 & 24.08.2000
were not in his possession and he received them from his sister in law
at a later stage, and therefore, being filed belatedly, cannot be
disbelieved at this stage. The learned trial court disbelieved the
argument of the petitioner that documents could not be filed due to
negligence of the previous counsel of the petitioner. Be that as it may,
even if it was a mistake on the part of the petitioner, as per the
decision of the Coordinate Bench in the case of Nishant Hannan
(supra), the parties do make the mistakes in the conduct of their cases
and therefore such mistakes should be allowed to be corrected unless
there is a great prejudice to the other side. The trial is still at an initial
CM(M) 1533/2023 Page 12 of 13
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:18.06.2025
14:50:04
stage. The parties are yet to lead evidence, and therefore, no great
prejudice shall be caused to the respondent in case the documents are
allowed to be taken on record.
22. The procedural rules under the CPC are intended to ensure
substantive justice and exclusion of the documents in the present case
would amount to elevating procedural technicalities over substantive
justice, thereby, defeating the very purpose of fair adjudication.
23. In view of the above, I find that the impugned order suffers
from gross illegality and perversity in disallowing the
petitioner/plaintiff from filing the additional documents by dismissing
the application of the petitioner/plaintiff.
24. In view of the aforesaid discussion, petition is allowed and
the impugned order dated 17.05.2023 is set aside. Petitioner/plaintiff
will be entitled to file additional documents which were sought to be
filed in terms of the subject application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC
and thereafter prove the same in accordance with law.
25. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.
18 JUNE, 2025
RM/AK
CM(M) 1533/2023 Page 13 of 13
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:VAISHALI PRUTHI
Signing Date:18.06.2025
14:50:04