Kiran v. Mahinder Pal Kaushik & Anr

V.B.GUPTA,J ab CM (M) No,1066/2010 % 29.09.2010 Present: Counsel for the petitioner. + CM (M) No. 1066/2010 A Costs have been deposited. No further order is required to be passed in this case. SEPTEMBER 29,2010 ab

V.B. GUPTA, J.

% HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI CM (M) No. 1066/2010 & CM No. 14893/2010 Judgmentreservedon: 19^'August2010 Judgmentdeliveredon: 26^*^August 2010 Smt. Kiran, W/o Late Shri Pradeep Kumar Kaushik, D/o Late Sh. Chander Kishore, R/o 837, Near Sant Gyaneshwar School, Gali No. 1, Alipur, Delhi ....Petitioner. Through: Mr. Ashok Sethi with Mr. Hari Mohan, Advocates. Versus 1. Sh. Mahinder Pal Kaushik, S/o Sh. Nayader Singh, R/o House No. 755/E, Lohia Marg, Gali No. 1, Babarpur, Shahdara, Delhi- 110 032. 2. Sh. Jugal Kishore Sharma, S/o Late Sh. Chander Kishore, R/o 177, Chirag Delhi, .Delhi. (Proforma Respondent) .Respondents Through: None Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. V.B.Gupta, J. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitionerfor setting aside order dated 7"^ July, 2010 passed by Guardianship Judge, Delhi, vide which application of petitioner under Section 151of Code of Civil Procedure (for short as 'Code') dated 13"" May, 2010, seeking permission to file certain documents was dismissed. 2. 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. 3. In Waryam Singh and another V5. 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 Muldierjee', 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." 4. 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. > tf 5. At the outset,it may be pointedout that on 19"' August,2010 when matter was listed for admission, it was pointed out to counsel for petitioner that copies of those documents which petitioner intended to file before the trial court have not been filed along with this petition and as such was given opportunity to file the same. However, learned counsel for petitioner contended that since reference of those documents is already there in the petition, there is no need to file the same and will argue the matter. 6. Though, it is correct that there is reference of those documents in the paper book but in the absence of copies of those documents on record, there is no option but to reject the petition out rightly. When petitioner has challenged the impugned order vide which permission was refused to file certain documents she ought to have filed copies of those documents on record for perusal of this Court. In absence of those documents no finding can be given as to whether documents sought to be filed are necessary for just decision of the case or not. Present petition is thus liable to be dismissed on this short ground alone. 7. Secondly, application seeking permission to file documents was moved under Section 151 of the Code. 8. It is well settled that as there is a specific provision in the Code [Order VIII Rule 1 (A)] for filing documents with the leave of Court, Page3 of 7 jpetitioner ought to have filed application under that provision. On this count also petition is also liable to be dismissed. 9. Lastly, it is contended that strict and mechanical use of Code in the matter of evidence in appointment of guardian is legally against the beneficial objects of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 and grave injustice would be caused to the minor concerned. 10. In 2006, respondent no. 1 filed