M/S Champion Ink & Chemicals And ANR v. Vijay Gupta
$~41 *
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ M/S CHAMPION INK & CHEMICALS AND ANR ..... Petitioners Through:
Mr. Akhand Pratap Singh & Mr. Prateek Tewari, Advocates.
versus VIJAY GUPTA ..... Respondent Through:
Mr. Puneet Garg, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
O R D E R
% 29.08.2016 C.M. No.31356/2016 (for exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
CM (M) No.840/2016 & C.M. No.31357/2016 (for stay) 1.
By the present petition, the petitioner seeks to impugn the order dated 2.6.2016 by which the application filed by the respondent/plaintiff under Section 151 CPC for permission to file additional documents was allowed.
2.
The plaintiff has filed the present suit under Order 37 CPC for recovery. The petitioners were granted leave to defend. On account of delay in filing the written statement, their defence was struck off
on 5.10.2015.
3.
After completion of evidence by the respondent/plaintiff, the respondent has filed the present application seeking permission to place on record Form B and Form A issued by the Registrar of Firms with respect to the plaintiff company and also further want to examine the plaintiff.
These are documents to show that the plaintiff/respondent is a registered firm.
4.
The trial court by the impugned order noted that as per the plaint and evidence filed by the respondent, the respondent, Vijay Gupta, is shown as the partner of M/s. Raj Chemicals. During the course of cross-examination of PW-1 and PW-2, the question of registration of the firm was put to the said witnesses. The trial court also noted that PW-2 in his cross-examination has stated that he can produce the proof of registration of the respondent firm. 5.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances, the trial court allowed the application and on account of the delay by the respondent, cost of Rs.3,000/- was imposed and only one opportunity was granted to the respondent for re-examination of PW-1 with respect to the documents filed with the application. 6.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that there is no ground to permit the respondent to place on record additional documents. Reliance is placed on judgments of this court in the case of Polyflor Limited vs. A.N. Goenka & Ors; 2016 SCC OnLine Del 2333 and Raunaq Automotive Components Ltd. vs. JPS Kanwar dated 16.9.2015 passed in FAO (OS) No.524/2015 to contend
that belated filing of documents in the absence of the plaintiff showing due diligence, cannot be allowed.
7.
In the present case, it is an admitted case of the parties that when the petitioner filed his application for leave to defend, no ground was taken about registration of the plaintiff/respondent firm. For the first time, this objection is raised during course of crossexamination of PW-1 and PW-2. It is also on record that PW-2 was cross-examined on 6.5.2016 and the present application has been filed immediately thereafter on 31.5.2016.
8.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the documents sought to be produced are only part of the official record and that the defence of the petitioner has already been struck off, in my opinion, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. JAYANT NATH, J.
AUGUST 29, 2016 'AA'