Document filing
RAVI AGRAWAL
(Querist) 14 April 2013
This query is : Resolved
Sir, I am defendant in a tenancy suit. I had filed a document which contained the address of plaintiff elsewhere to prove that a he his residing at some other place which is owned by his wife. In that document only the word address was mentioned in the heading. During cross the plaintiffs advocate asked a question to me that whether the word reidence address is used in the heading. I obviously had to answer no. Now i found another document in which the heading is atly mentioned as permanent residential address. But now the court is not allowing the document saying it is delayed. I filed a writ in the high court but high court didn't admitted the writ saying that defendant is adopting delayed tactic. The said dcoument is very important to prove that that there is no bonafide need of the plaintiff. Please provide me some case laws whereby it is held that additional document being filed the need for which has arised due to cross examination is not a delayed document.
Please help urgently as next hearing is on 17.04 and before that i have to file a appeal in SC.
RAVI AGRAWAL
(Querist) 14 April 2013
Sir ca you mention any case law where we have favourable decision
ajay sethi
(Expert) 14 April 2013
for judgements visit indian kanoon website
Advocate M.Bhadra
(Expert) 14 April 2013
Supreme Court of India
Kapil Kumar Sharma vs Lalit Kumar Sharma & Anr. on 9 April, 2009
Author: ....................J.
Bench: Altamas Kabir, B. Sudershan Reddy
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.2330 OF 2009
[Arising out of SLP(C)No.17249 of 2008]
KAPIL KUMAR SHARMA ... Appellant(s)
Versus
LALIT KUMAR SHARMA & ANR. ... Respondent(s)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.2331 OF 2009
[Arising out of SLP(C)No.17250 of 2008]
ORDER
Leave granted.
These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 6th
November, 2007 passed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court against the
common order passed in FAO(OS)No.443-444 of 2007. The said appeals were
directed against the order dated 23rd July, 2007, passed by the learned Single Judge,
dismissing the appellant's application, under Order 7 Rule 14, CPC, seeking leave
to file additional documents in Probate Case No. 40 of 1999 and Civil Suit No.
1632 of 1996. The learned Single Judge by his said order dismissed the
-2-
application and the said order was upheld by the Division Bench seemingly on the ground that the matters were ready for hearing and were at the stage of cross
examination and, accordingly, such prayer could not be granted.
Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, we are unable to agree with the decision of the Division Bench as also the Single Bench as we have been informed that the cross-examination has not yet commenced. In such a situation, we see no reason for debarring the appellant from filing the additional documents in support of his claim.
We accordingly, allow the appeals and set aside the orders passed, both by the Division Bench as also the Single Bench and allow the appellant's application under Order 7, Rule 14 CPC and direct that the additional documents filed by the appellant be taken up for consideration subject to proof thereof. The appeals are accordingly allowed.
There will be no order as to costs.
R.K Nanda
(Expert) 14 April 2013
agree with experts.
Devajyoti Barman
(Expert) 14 April 2013
without knowing case details we can not advise decisions.
DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g
(Expert) 14 April 2013
In the above citation of SC when the cross had not commenced so the APEX COURT allowed the production.
In your case since cross is over so not much can be achieved by going to SC.
Since you are a defendant and still will have opportunity to examine your witness. You can devise ways to examine some related witness to bring this fact on record.
Advocate Ravinder
(Expert) 19 April 2013
As devajyothi barman sir had advised you, by engaging a good lawyer and by citing good citations you can win the case. Even if the cross is over, you can recall the witness for further trial. For that You have to convince the Judge that it is good evidence to prove the case.
