IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF MS.

SAUMYA CHAUHAN,
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-02,
CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURT,
DELHI
C.S. NO. 609540/2016

IN THE MATTER OF:

SHAN MOHD. …PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

SDMC & ORS. …RESPONDENTS

N.D.O.H : 15.01.2023

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF PLAINITIFF

Sir,

The Plaintiff respectfully submits as follows:

1. That, the abovementioned suit is pending adjudication

before this Hon’ble Court and now, fixed for disposal on
15.02.2023.
2. That the civil suit was filed in the year 2004 by the
Plaintiff.
3. That in the year 2021, SDMC moved an Application for
filling the certain documents. It is pertinent to mention
that the application is not supported with the affidavit of
anyone so the same is liable to be dismissed on this ground
alone.
4. That the relevant facts for consideration of this application
which has not mentioned by the applicant/Defendant are
mentioned below: -

(a) That in this case the issues were framed on 21.07.2005.

The Hon’ble Court vide same order was pleased to
order that the defendant would lead the evidence at
first. The relevant lines of the said order are reproduced
below: -

“…No other issue arises or is pressed. Since the

burden of main issue i.e. Issue No. 1, lies on the
defendant, hence defendant evidence will be led
first. Put up for defendant evidence on 02.09.05.
Copy of advance affidavit be given to the ld.
Counsel for the plaintiff prior to one week before the
next date of hearing…”

(b) That the defendant took various adjournments for

leading the evidence and even cost was imposed upon
the defendant. The same is clear from the following
orders passed by this Hon’ble Court: -

06.11.2006
“…No DW is present and adjournment has been
prayed. Adjournment not opposed…”

16.01.2007
“…No DW is present. Adjournment has been
prayed. I have seen my last order as well…”
30.05.2007
“…Both the witnesses of MCD are also present.
However learned counsel for MCD has prayed for
short adjournment. He has claimed that some
original record is still to be traced out and place on
judicial record. He has also drawn my attention
towards Para 3 of the affidavits of both the officials
of MCD and short adjournment has been prayed
accordingly to trace out the original relevant record
in this regard…”

07.09.2007
“…Officials from MCD i.e. DW1 & DW2 are
present. However, proxy counsel for MCD has
prayed for short adjournment as Sh. Sachdeva is
unable to come as his son is unwell…”

13.11.2007
“…There is request for adjournment from the side
of defendant/MCD…”

04.02.2008
“…MCD has now changes it counsel and fresh
Vakalatnama in favour of Shri Neeraj Kumar Singh
has been filed today and adjournment has been
prayed as counsel for MCD wants to go through the
entire record.
Case is adjourned to 07.04.2008 for DE.
 It is clarified at the cost of repetition that MCD
would not be granted any further opportunity on any
ground whatsoever…”

(c) That finally defendant evidence was closed vide order

dated 07.04.2008 which is reproduced below: -

“…DW1 & DW2 are present and they have been

examined and discharged. No other DW is present.
No other DW has been summoned. In view of my
various previous orders. DE stands closed. Case is
adjourned to 28.07.2008 for PE…”

5. That there are specific provisions in CPC for filing the

documents at various stages. No specific provision is
stated therefore this application is liable to be dismissed on
this ground alone.
6. It is submitted that the specific Provisions to bring on
record the certain documents are Order VIII Rule 1A (3) of
CPC but the Defendant filed an application under Section
151 of CPC. The relevant lines of the said provisions are
reproduced below: -

“(3) A document which ought to be produced in Court

by the defendant under this rule, but, is not so
produced shall not, without the leave of the Court,
be received in evidence on his behalf at the
hearing of the suit.”
7. That the documents mentioned in Para 2 of the application
dated 17.01.1972, 11.09.1972 and 27.03.1973 are much
prior to the leading the evidence. If they were necessary to
decide the real controversy between the parties then they
could have been filed in their evidence. There is not even a
whisper in the entire application giving any reason
whatsoever why they were not filed while leading the
evidence.

8. That the Defendant in there affidavit dated 05.02.2022

submitted in para 2 on page No.2 that at the time of
evidence on 23.03.2007, the Counsel for on behalf of the
South MCD overlooked to Exhibit the said documents/ it
might be inadvertently not brought before this Hon’ble
Court nor asked from the Department Concerned.

9. It is pertinent to mention that inadvertently cannot be the

ground to produce any document at any stage on record.

10.That the Defendant while filling the Application relied

upon the Anita Kumari Gupta v. Ved Bhushan & Others of
the Delhi High Court. In the said Judgment, another
judgment was cited which clearly state that the
inadvertently cannot be the ground. The relevant lines are
quoted below:

“15. In Shri Harkesh Singh & Anr. v. Shri Ved Raj

(supra), this Court had rejected the application for
production of documents which were not produced
at the relevant time due to inadvertence. The Court
 held that inadvertence cannot be a ground for
allowing application for production of documents
at a later stage.”

11. It is pertinent to mention that in affidavit defendant have

submitted that in year 2017 the new counsel was engaged
and the knowledge of the said document was given by the
counsel.
12. It is pertinent to mention that since 2017 Defendant have
not filed the Application to bring on record the documents
and in year 2022 when Defendant filed the application they
did not mention the reason of delay nor moved the
application within proper provisions neither affidavit has
been placed with the Application.
13.That the applicant/ Defendant have not come before this
Hon’ble Court with clean hands and therefore this
application is liable to be dismissed on this ground.

THROUGH COUNSEL:

RAJIV DALAL/ SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA

ADVOCATE(S) FOR THE PLAINTIFF
“D & S LAW OFFICES”
Chamber Nos. B-139-142, Tis Hazari Courts
B – 10, 2nd Floor, Jangpura Extension,
New Delhi – 110014.
E-mail: rajiv@dslawoffices.in
contact@dslawoffices.in
Mob. No.: +91 9810096196
Filed On: .02.2023
At New Delhi