Durga Devi v. Lalita Rakyan & Anr

V.B.GUPTA, J. ab

* HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI CM (M) No. 1141/2010 & CM No. 15989/2010 % Judgment reserved on: 06th September, 2010 Judgment delivered on: 09th September, 2010 Smt. Durga Devi, W/o Late Murari Lal, R/o 5693, 2nd Floor, Nai Sarak, New Delhi-110006. ….Petitioner. Through: Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Advocate. Versus 1. Smt. Lalita Rakyan, W/o Late Shri Laxmi Chand Rakyan, R/o 1863, Cheera Khana, Maliwara, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006. 2. Sh. Sudhir Rakyan, W/o Late Shri Laxmi Chand Rakyan, R/o 1863, Cheera Khana, Maliwara, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006. 3. Municipal Corporation of Delhi. Through its Commissioner, Town Hall, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006. ….Respondents Through: Mr. Jitender Kumar, Adv. for respondent no.3/MCD. Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes V.B.Gupta, J. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by petitioner against order dated 9th July, 2010 passed by Additional District Judge, Delhi. 2. Brief facts are that in year 2005, respondents no. 1 and 2 (plaintiffs in trial court) filed a suit for possession, injunction and damages for Rs.36,000/- against present petitioner (respondent no.1 in the trial court). In October, 2005 petitioner filed her written statement. In 2010 she filed one application under Order 6 Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short as "Code") for amendment of written statement. Another application was filed under Order 8 Rule 1 (A) of the Code seeking permission to file certain documents. By single order (i.e. impugned order) trial court dismissed both applications of the petitioner. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that amendments sought for are necessary for just and proper adjudication of the controversy involved in the suit and it is not going to change the nature of case. 4. Another contention is that documents sought to be placed on record are vital and same go to the root of the case and are very necessary for fair disposal of the suit. No prejudice is going to be caused to the respondents. 5. Present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is well settled that jurisdiction of this Court under this Article is limited. 6. In Waryam Singh and another vs. Amarnath and another, AIR 1954, SC 215, the court observed; "This power of superintendence conferred by Article 227 is, as pointed out by Harries, C.J., in – "Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd. V. Sukumar Mukherjee", AIR 1951 Cal 193 (SB) (B), to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the Subordinate Courts within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors." 7. In light of principles laid down in the above decision, it is to be seen as to whether present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against impugned order is maintainable or not. 8. In application under Order 8 Rule 1 (A) of the Code plea of petitioner is that, inadvertently she could not file relevant documents with her written statement. 9. As stated above, written statement was filed 2005. Respondent has already tendered his evidence by way of affidavit. Only reason given by petitioner is that she could not file these documents inadvertently, which is not a sufficient ground to allow the application. 10. In Madan Lal Vs. ShyamLal, AIR 2002 SC 100, Supreme court observed; "Documents not produced at the appropriate stage shall not be received by the Court unless good cause is shown." 11. Trial court relied upon a decision of this court Dr. J. K. Jain Vs. Krishnaram Baldeo Investment and Finance Co. Ltd, CM (M) No. 217/2008 wherein it was held; " The Court may permit the production of such documents only on showing sufficient cause. In the present case, the documents sought to be produced by the petitioner later on were not such which were no