MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

High Court of Delhi Allows Filing of Additional Documents in Property Dispute Case emphasizes fair trial principles.

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the High Court of Delhi permitted the plaintiffs in a property dispute case to file additional documents, reversing a lower court's decision. The ruling, delivered by Justice Dharmesh Sharma on January 19, 2024, emphasizes that allowing these documents does not prejudice the defendants and ensures a fair trial.

The petitioners, Jai Sharma and another, filed a suit for recovery of possession, arrears of rent, mesne profits, and permanent injunction against the respondents, Ramwati and another. They sought to introduce additional documents, including a General Power of Attorney and a complaint to the police, which were not initially filed with the plaint. The Trial Court had dismissed this application, prompting the revision petition.

Justice Sharma observed that while the plaintiffs did not file these documents initially, their inclusion at the evidence stage would not unfairly disadvantage the defendants. "The documents sought to be placed neither come as a surprise to the respondents/defendants nor do they improve upon the case of the petitioners/plaintiffs either," noted the court. The court highlighted that these documents were acknowledged by both parties, negating any claim of unexpected prejudice.

The lower court had relied on the case of Asia Pacific Breweries v. Superior Industries, asserting that inadvertence is not a valid reason for late submission of documents. However, the High Court found that this principle did not apply here since the documents' existence and relevance were already acknowledged in the proceedings.

Justice Sharma referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Mohammed Abdul Wahid v. Nilofer & Anr., underscoring that procedural rules should not obstruct justice if no prejudice is caused. The court stressed that the primary aim is to ensure a just resolution of disputes, and procedural flexibility can be warranted to serve this purpose.

"The learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the whole gamut of the case and filing of such documents at a belated stage would not result in any prejudice to either of the parties," stated Justice Sharma. The judgment emphasized that the defendants had acknowledged the documents, mitigating any concerns of procedural unfairness.

The High Court's decision to set aside the Trial Court's order and allow the submission of additional documents underscores the judiciary's commitment to fair trial principles. By ensuring that both parties can present relevant evidence, the judgment reinforces the legal framework's flexibility to achieve justice. The case, now remanded for further proceedings with the newly admitted documents, is expected to progress towards a more informed adjudication.

 

Date of Decision: January 19, 2024

Jai Sharma & Anr. vs. Ramwati & Anr.

 

Latest Legal News