Judgment:
$~OS-19 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + TEST.CAS. 38/2014 HARKIRAT SINGH SODHI Date of decision:
08. 08.2018 ........ Petitioner
Through Mr. Lalit Gupta, Ms.Piyusha Singh and Mr.Nilind Jain, Advs. versus GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS
Through Mr. Sashank S.Tiwari, Adv. Mr.S.K.Tripahti, ASC for GNCTD Mr.Ved Prakash Sharma, Ms.Amrit Kaur Oberoi, Mr.Siddharth Bhardwaj and Ms.Abha Sharma, Advs. for the respondents. for CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH JAYANT NATH, J.(ORAL) O.A. No.50/2018 1. This appeal is filed by the petitioner seeking to impugn the order dated 06.04.2018 passed by the Joint Registrar dismissing the application of the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC for placing on record necessary/relevant documents.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/appellant has filed the present petition for grant of probate of the registered Will of his mother, namely, Late Smt.Surinder Kaur Sodhi dated 13.01.1987. Respondent No.2 who is the sister of the appellant has also filed a testamentary case being TEST. CAS. No.42/2014 titled as “Amita Gandoak vs. State & Ors.” TEST.CAS. 38/2014 Page 1 of 5 whereby she has propounded an un-registered Will dated 07.09.2004 of the mother, namely, Late Smt. Surinder Kaur Sondhi. Present case, namely, TEST CAS. 38/2014 has been consolidated with TEST. CAS.42/2018 and now, the two cases are being heard together. Issues were framed on 06.01.2017. The present application was filed thereafter seeking to place on record various additional documents including the Will dated 29.12.1981 executed by Mr.S.Gurmukh Singh Chawla, the grandfather of the petitioner and the registered Will dated 05.07.1985 executed by Smt. Raj Kaur Chawla, the grandmother of the petitioner. It is pleaded that these Wills and the Will which is the subject matter of the present probate petition would show that they have been written in the same manner and structured in the same manner. Other documents are also sought to be placed on record including the certified copies of the probate case filed by Mrs. Narinder Kuar Bedi regarding the Will executed by late Sh. Gurmukh Singh Chawla. The additional documents it is pleaded are required to prove the signatures of the testator and also the fact that the petitioner was close to the testator.
3. The Joint Registrar by the impugned order dated 06.04.2018 dismissed the application noting that this is the third application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC since framing of issues. Earlier two applications were allowed on 10.08.2017 and 30.01.2018 respectively. The petitioner was also directed to file his affidavit by way of evidence. This direction has yet not been complied with. The impugned order notes that the only reason for not filing the present documents at an earlier stage was that the documents were lying at Plaza Cinema and could not be accessible and it is only while preparing defence in CS(OS) 90/2017 that the petitioner chanced upon these documents. Noting that the successive applications TEST.CAS. 38/2014 Page 2 of 5 being filed by the petitioner to place on record additional documents indicates lack of due diligence on the part of the petitioner, the present application was dismissed.
4. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner has strongly reiterated that the documents which are sought to be filed are necessary to prove the case of the petitioner. He has reiterated that the two Wills which he seeks to file of the grandparents and the Will which is the subject matter of the present probate petition are structured in the same manner. He also reiterates the submissions which have been made in the application as to why the documents are necessary.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents has strongly objected to the present appeal. He has pointed out that there is no dispute that the Will being propounded by the petitioner dated 13.01.1987 has been signed by the testator. He submits that the respondents have however pleaded that the said Will was signed pursuant to undue influence on the said testator. Hence, he submits that there is no issue of the signatures of the testator on the Will dated 13.01.1987. Learned counsel for the respondents also states that the property in question is in possession of the petitioner and the petitioner is delaying the proceedings as he is in possession of the property.
7. Order VII Rule 14 CPC reads as follows:-
"Order 7 Rule 14: Production of document on which plaintiff sues or relies (1) Where a plaintiff sues upon a document or relies upon document in his possession or power in support of his claim, he shall enter such documents in a list, and shall produce it in Court when the plaint is presented by him and shall, at the same TEST.CAS. 38/2014 Page 3 of 5 time deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the plaint. (2) Where any such document is not in the possession or power of the plaintiff, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose possession or power it is. (3) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the plaintiff when the plaint is presented, or to be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint but is not produced or entered accordingly, shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit. (4) Nothing in this rule shall apply to document produced for the cross examination of the plaintiff's witnesses, or, handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.
8. It is manifest that the present application has been filed belatedly. In fact, it is the third application filed seeking the same relief. I agree with the reasoning given in the impugned order that there is lack of due diligence on the part of the petitioner.
9. That apart, most of the contentions which are sought to be raised by the petitioner lose their significance in view of the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents, namely, that they do not challenge the signatures of the testator on the Will dated 13.01.1987. There are no grounds made out to grant leave to the petitioner to have the documents placed on record. I see no reason to interfere in the impugned order.
10. The appeal is dismissed. TEST.CAS. 38/2014 Learned counsel for the petitioner may file his affidavit by way of evidence within four weeks from today with advance copy. TEST.CAS. 38/2014 Page 4 of 5 List before the Joint Registrar on 18.09.2018. AUGUST08 2018 rb JAYANT NATH, J.
TEST.CAS. 38/2014 Page 5 of 5