Or. 6 Rule 17 CPC | A Suit Cannot be Converted into a Fresh Litigation – Amendment Cannot Introduce a New Cause of Action: Andhra Pradesh High Court Government Cannot Withhold Retirement Without Formal Rejection Before Notice Period Expires: Delhi High Court Drug Offences Threaten Society, Courts Must Show Zero Tolerance : Meghalaya High Court Refuses Bail Under Section 37 NDPS Act Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Due to Serious Allegations, Unless Justified by Law: Kerala High Court When Law Prescribes a Limitation, Courts Cannot Ignore It: Supreme Court Quashes Time-Barred Prosecution Under Drugs and Cosmetics Act Issuing Notices to a Non-Existent Entity is a Substantive Illegality, Not a Mere Procedural Lapse: Bombay High Court Quashes Income Tax Reassessment Notices Termination Without Verifying Evidence is Legally Unsustainable: Allahabad High Court Reinstates Government Counsel Luxury for One Cannot Mean Struggle for the Other - Husband’s True Income Cannot Be Suppressed to Deny Fair Maintenance: Calcutta High Court Penalty Proceedings Must Be Initiated and Concluded Within The Prescribed Timeline Under Section 275(1)(C): Karnataka High Court Upholds ITAT Order" Landlord Entitled to Recovery of Possession, Arrears of Rent, and Damages for Unauthorized Occupation: Madras High Court Supreme Court Slams Punjab and Haryana High Court for Illegally Reversing Acquittal in Murder Case, Orders ₹5 Lakh Compensation for Wrongful Conviction Mere Absence of Wholesale License Does Not Make a Transaction Unlawful:  Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against INOX Air Products Stigmatic Dismissal Without Inquiry Violates Fair Process, Rules High Court in Employment Case Recruiting Authorities Have Discretion to Fix Cut-Off Marks – No Arbitrariness Found: Orissa High Court Charge-Sheet Is Not a Punishment, Courts Should Not Interfere: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Writ Against Departmental Inquiry Injunction Cannot Be Granted Without Identifiable Property or Evidence of Prima Facie Case: Karnataka High Court Fairness Demands Compensation Under the 2013 Act; Bureaucratic Delays Cannot Defeat Justice: Supreme Court Competition Commission Must Issue Notice to Both Parties in a Combination Approval: Supreme Court Physical Possession and Settled Possession Are Prerequisites for Section 6 Relief: Delhi High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Decision Granting Possession Hyper-Technical Approach Must Be Avoided in Pre-Trial Amendments: Punjab & Haryana High Court FIR Lodged After Restitution of Conjugal Rights Suit Appears Retaliatory: Calcutta High Court Quashes Domestic Violence Case Two-Year Immunity from No-Confidence Motion Applies to Every Elected Sarpanch, Not Just the First in Office: Bombay High Court Enforcing The Terms Of  Agreement Does Not Amount To Contempt Of Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Contempt Order Against Power Company Officers Consent of a minor is immaterial under law: Allahabad High Court Rejects Bail Plea of Man Accused of Enticing Minor Sister-in-Law and Dowry Harassment False Promise of Marriage Does Not Automatically Amount to Rape: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Under Section 376 IPC Dowry Harassment Cannot Be Ignored, But Justice Must Be Fair: Supreme Court Upholds Conviction Under Section 498A IPC, Modifies Sentence to Time Served with Compensation of ₹3 Lakh Mere Presence in a Crime Scene Insufficient to Prove Common Intention – Presence Not Automatically Establish Common Intention Under Section 34 IPC: Supreme Court: Compensation Must Ensure Financial Stability—Not Be Subject to Arbitrary Reductions: Supreme Court Slams Arbitrary Reduction of Motor Accident Compensation by High Court

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.

 

Similar News