Can't Compel Party To File Documents On Which It Did Not Rely Except For Certain Specific Eventualities Mentioned In CPC: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that no Court can compel a party to file documents on which the party did not choose to rely, save and except in respect of certain specific eventualities for which provisions are contained in the Code of Civil Procedure.

Justice C Hari Shankar added that in any litigation, the choice of the documents which are to be brought on record is the sole prerogative of the party who files the documents.

The Court was dealing with a plea challenging orders dated 8th July, 2021 and 6th May, 2022, passed by the Additional District Judge in a civil suit.

The order dated 8th July, 2021 rejected an application filed by the petitioner, as the defendant in in the suit, seeking dismissal of the suit under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. Towards the conclusion of the impugned order, the ADJ directed the respondent to file two documents.

The subsequent order dated 6th May, 2022 disposed of an application, filed by the petitioner under sec. 151 of the CPC, seeking a direction to the respondent-plaintiff to comply with the order dated 8th July, 2021 "in its true spirit" and, accordingly, to extend the time available with the petitioner to file written statement.

The ADJ had vide the second impugned, held that the respondent had complied with the directions contained in the first impugned order regarding filing of documents, and had extended the time available with the petitioner to file written statement in the suit by a period of four weeks from 6th May, 2022.

During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner-defendant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, which stood dismissed by the first impugned order.

The counsel appearing for the petitioner had restricted the challenge qua the impugned order dated 8th July, 2021, which rejected the said application, predicated on sec. 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

The High Court thus observed reiterated that the scope of examination by the Court exercising jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 11 has necessarily to peregrinate at all times, within the boundaries of the plaint and the averments contained therein, read with the documents filed with the plaint, and cannot venture any further.

"Even if that were so, however, the Court could not examine such documents while adjudicating on an application under Order VII Rule 11. The Court, to reiterate yet again, can only examine the averments in the plaint and the documents filed with the plaint," the Court said.

The Court was also of the view that neither would the impugned order, nor would the judgment, inhibit the petitioner from retaining the right, at any subsequent stage of the suit and in accordance with law, to press for dismissal of the suit as being barred by sec. 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.

"For these reasons, no fault can be found with the impugned order dated 8th July, 2021, insofar as it rejects the petitioner's application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. The order is, therefore, upheld in its entirety," the Court said.

It added "No exception can, in my view, therefore, be taken to the finding of the learned ADJ, in the second impugned order dated 6th May, 2022, to the extent it holds that no further directions were required to be issued, to the respondent, for complying with the directions contained in the first impugned order dated 8th July, 2021."

The plea was accordingly disposed of.

Case Title: KRISHAN KAKKAR v. KIRAN CHANDER

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 509

Click Here To Read Order