The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition challenging a trial court’s order that permitted a plaintiff to place additional documents on record under Order VII Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). Justice Girish Kathpalia held that the defendants themselves created the necessity for filing the documents by challenging the plaintiff’s ownership during cross-examination, remarking that “cross-examination is not what to ask, but what not to ask.”
The central legal issue before the Court was whether the trial court erred in allowing the respondent/plaintiff to file documents (a conveyance deed and receipts) at the stage of cross-examination, which had come into existence after the filing of the suit and the framing of issues. The High Court upheld the trial court’s decision, finding no infirmity in the order dated August 19, 2025.
Background of the Case
The petitioners (defendants in the original suit) approached the High Court assailing the trial court’s order which allowed the respondent/plaintiff’s application under Order VII Rule 14 CPC. The application sought permission to place on record a conveyance deed dated September 27, 2023 (registered on October 11, 2023), an authorization slip, a registration fees receipt dated October 8, 2023, and a municipal tax receipt dated October 6, 2023.
The original suit was filed on September 28, 2021, and issues were framed on October 20, 2022. It was an admitted position that the subject documents were not in existence at the time the suit was filed or when the issues were framed.
Arguments of the Parties
The counsel for the petitioners/defendants argued that the impugned order was legally unsustainable. They contended that although the documents came into existence in September-October 2023, the respondent/plaintiff did not file them immediately. Instead, the plaintiff waited until November 2024 to move the application. The counsel asserted that there was no explanation provided for this delay.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Girish Kathpalia noted that the admitted position was that the documents did not exist prior to September-October 2023. The Court placed significant reliance on a specific exchange that occurred during the cross-examination of the respondent/plaintiff.
The Court reproduced the relevant portion of the cross-examination:
Question: “I put it to you that you have not placed any document in order to show your ownership because you are not the owner of the property.”
Answer: “It is correct. Vol. I have all the documents in order to prove my ownership in the suit property.”
The Court observed that the application under Order VII Rule 14 CPC was necessitated “in the backdrop of such question and answer.” Justice Kathpalia made a key observation regarding the art of cross-examination:
“The cross-examination is not what to ask, but what not to ask. Whether or not the documents were on record was a matter of record only. It is the petitioners/defendants only who created a situation whereby the respondent/plaintiff felt necessity to move the application under Order VII Rule 14 CPC.”
The Court reasoned that since the respondent/plaintiff had categorically stated in his answer that he possessed all documents to prove his ownership, failing to place them on record would have made him “liable to adverse inference.”
Decision
Finding that the defendants’ own line of questioning necessitated the filing of the proof of ownership, the High Court concluded that there was no infirmity in the trial court’s order. The Court dismissed the petition and the accompanying applications, refusing to issue notice in the matter.
