As per case facts, the petitioner filed a Civil Revision Petition challenging a trial court order that allowed the respondents to submit an additional affidavit and documents during an ongoing ...
CR-3862-2026 Page 1 of 50
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR-3862-2026(O&M)
MGF Developments Ltd.
...Petitioner(s)
Vs.
Cosmo Propbuild Pvt. Ltd. & Others
...Respondent(s)
The date when the judgment is reserved 11.05.2026
The date when the judgment is pronounced 18.05.2026
The date when the judgment is uploaded on the
website
18.05.2026
Whether only operative part of the judgment is
pronounced or whether the full judgment is
pronounced
Full Judgment
CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Argued by:- Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Amandeep Sigh Talwar, Advocate;
Mr. Vikram Vir Sharda, Advocate
Mr. Jugansh Goyal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. RS Rai, Senior Advocate (through V.C.)
Mr. Aashish Chopra, Senior Advocate with
Ms. Rubina Vermani; Ms. Rupa Pathania, Advocate;
Mr. Abhinav Kaushik, Advocate;
Mr. Himanshu Kashyap; Advocate;
Mr. Randeep Khaira, Advocate;
Mr. Arjun S. Rai, Advocate; and
Ms. Prachi Gupta, Advocate
for respondents No. 1 to 6.
***
NIDHI GUPTA, J.
Present Revision Petition has been filed by the plaintiff laying
challenge to the order dated 21.04.2026 (Annexure P-21) passed by the
learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurugram; whereby
CR-3862-2026 Page 2 of 50
application filed by the respondents/defendants No.1 to 7 under Section
151 CPC for placing on record Additional Affidavit along with documents,
has been allowed.
2. The sequence of events in chronological order is as
follows: –
16.05.2016: A Demerger Scheme was formulated between Emaar MGF
Land Ltd. (Demerged Company) and MGF Development Ltd (Resulting
Company). The appointed date for the Scheme was closing hours of
30.9.2015. The Suit land formed part of the Demerged Undertaking. It is the
case of the petitioner that the Defendants/Respondents 1- 7 through Mr.
Basant Bansal, Roop Kumar Bansal and Pankaj Bansal expressed interest in
exchanging 31.12 acres of land in village Chauma, District Gurugram which
formed part of this de-merged undertaking coming to the Plaintiff. The
terms of transaction included payment of consideration in form of money
in addition to exchange of land. Negotiations commenced with subsidiaries
of Emaar, namely Messrs Sparsh Promoters, Sandesh and Sidhant.
18.11.2016: Civil Suit No.2536 of 2016 titled as Ms. Sparsh Promoters,
Sandesh and Sidhant Vs. Cosmo, Surya, Star City, Neer and Vibrant – (all
Subsidiaries) came to be filed allegedly because the Bansals attempted to
exercise rights even before an understanding was formalised.
CR-3862-2026 Page 3 of 50
23.11.2016: A Compromise deed was executed between M/s Sparsh
Promoters & Ors. And Cosmo & Ors. On 23.11.2016, five Exchange deeds
were executed between M/s Sparsh Promoters & Ors. And Cosmo & Ors.
09.12.2016: Based on the compromise, a Lok Adalat Award was passed.
(Both the plaint and the compromise deed form part of the Award).
31.12.2017: Plaintiff asserts that a third set of cheques towards exchange
replaced the earlier ones.
27.03.2018: It is also the case of the petitioner that the Cheques presented
towards discharge of liability for land exchange, were dishonoured.
28.03.2018: Letters were issued by subsidiaries - Sparsh to Messrs. Neer
Builders, Surya Propcon, Cosmo Propbuild, Starcity Realtech/present
defendants - intimating that cheques have not been honoured and hence
the Exchange Deeds have been rendered void. It was contended that there
was automatic cancellation of the Exchange Deeds which would be void ab-
initio on account of failure to honour the payment as, payment for the
exchange of the land was not made. The Defendants/Respondents took a
stand that while they issued the 1st and 2nd set of cheques, the 3rd set was
not issued but signed cheques which were misplaced fell into the hands of
the plaintiff and were presented.
08.01.2018/16.07.2018: The NCLT approved the Scheme with the
appointed date of 30.9.2015; while approving the Scheme (corrected on 16
CR-3862-2026 Page 4 of 50
July 2018). The scheme was filed before the Registrar on 31.07.2018. It
became effective from the appointed date.
27.08.2021: MGF (Plaintiff) on coming to know that the
Defendants/Respondents had applied for licence on about 4.5 Acres of land
which formed part of the Exchange, filed a complaint to DG, DTCP, Haryana
regarding application submitted by Defendants/Respondents.
13.12.2021: MGF filed CWP 25534 of 2021 in the High Court alleging that
the DTCP was not being fair in hearing the complaint; and challenging the
Lok Adalat Award.
19.04.2022: CWP 25534 of 2021, was partly allowed by this Court. The
complaint of the Plaintiff was referred to a different officer for decision. As
regards the challenge to the Award, the writ was dismissed while leaving
other remedies open.
04.05.2022: RA-CW-73-2022 filed by MGF in CWP 25534 of 2021, was
dismissed by holding that order was clear and did not call for clarification.
30.05.2022: Complaint dated 27.08.2021 filed by MGF was dismissed by
Director Urban Local Bodies while relying on the very Exchange Deeds
which are subject matter of the present suit.
01.07.2022: Petitioner filed present Civil Suit bearing No. 2886 of 2022
(Annexure P-1), titled “MGF Developments Ltd. Vs. Cosmo Propbuild Pvt.
Ltd. and Others”, before the Ld. Trial Court seeking inter alia a decree of
permanent injunction, mandatory injunction and declaration against the
CR-3862-2026 Page 5 of 50
Respondents restraining them from interfering in the alleged peaceful
possession of Petitioner over the Suit Property and restraining them from
claiming any rights under the Exchange Deeds.
05.08.2022: 4.5 acres of the Suit land formed part of licence no.106 of 2022.
09.08.2022: Defendants No. 1 to 6 filed Application u/Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
01.09.2022: Plaintiff filed reply to Application under O7 R11.
09.09.2022: In the meantime, an Application under O23 R3A CPC was filed
by MGF in Civil Suit No. 2536 of 2016 for setting aside Compromise deed
23.11.2016 and Award dated 09.12.2016. In the said Application,
Defendants tried to make payment – which was ordered to be kept in FDR.
20.12.2022: Respondents No. 8 to 10 (LOCs) filed application (IA No. 04 of
2022 in CM-600 of 2022 in the said O23 R3A application) seeking release of
the FDRs.
22.12.2022: IA No. 04 of 2022 as well as main application bearing CM-600
of 2022, both were disposed of. The Application under O23 R3A and
application for release of FDR were both dismissed.
13.07.2023: Against the above order dated 22.12.2022, petitioner/MGF
filed CR 858 against dismissal of O 23 R 3A; and CR 33 of 2023 was filed by
LoC’s against order dated 22.12.2022. Both the above said Civil Revision
petitions were dismissed by this Court. Thus, the application filed by
Plaintiff under Order 23 Rule 3A CPC stood rejected; while the demand for
CR-3862-2026 Page 6 of 50
release of money deposited by present Defendants/Respondents in favour
of Defendants was also rejected.
August 2023: SLP No(s). 21462/2023 was filed by the Plaintiff against the
dismissal of CR 858 of 2023; and 2nd SLP filed by the LoC’s in CR 33 of 2023
challenging the rejection of the Execution Application.
15.09.2023: In the meantime, in the present CS-2886-2022 in the
application filed by the petitioner under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, an
initial Injunction is granted to the Plaintiff/petitioner by the Trial Court.
25.09.2023: Reply to O39 R 1&2 is filed by the respondents claiming 735
residential apartments have been sold.
16.10.2023: Ultimately, the Application under O39 R1&2 CPC, in CS-2886-
2022, was dismissed by the Trial Court.
17.11.2023: The petitioner filed Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.283 of 2023
against rejection of interim injunction vide order dated 16.10.2023.
06.02.2024: In the SLP No(s). 21462/2023 and 2nd SLP filed by LoC’s, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court noted that the Plaintiff has been relegated to the
present suit and directed that the first Appellate Court to decide the Appeal
pertaining to O 39 R 1 and 2 without being influenced by previous orders.
05.04.2024: Pursuant to Supreme Court directions the ld. Additional District
Judge allowed the appeal bearing number CMA No.283 of 2023, filed by the
Petitioner herein challenging the order dated 16.10.2023, whereby the
CR-3862-2026 Page 7 of 50
application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of CPC was dismissed by Ld. Trial
Court; and injunction was granted to the petitioner.
27.05.2024: In the meantime, the Learned Trial Court allowed the
application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC filed by the Respondents herein
on the ground that the Suit filed by Petitioner herein is barred under Order
XXIII Rule 3, law of limitation and res judicata.
August 2024: Against the above order dated 27.5.2024, the petitioners filed
CMA-435-2024, with an application for condonation of 38 days delay.
13.01.2025: Vide order dated 13.1.2025, Application for condonation of the
delay in the filing of appeal against order dated 27.05.2024 was dismissed.
09.04.2025: The petitioner filed RSA 1086 of 2025 against 13.01.2025 and
also preferred an application under O41 R5 seeking interim stay. This Court
set aside the order dated 13.01.2025 and directed the LAC to decide the
appeal against O7R11 on merits; while granting an injunction till disposal of
the appeal. The matter was remanded, but while remanding the matter, this
Court ordered that no third-party rights shall be created by either party
during the pendency of the appeal. The order dated 13.01.2025 was set
aside, subject to Petitioner paying cost of INR 1,00,000/- to Respondents.
22.04.2025: Defendants/Respondents felt aggrieved by the grant of said
injunction by this Court; and filed a Review No. 21 of 2025 in RSA No. 1086
of 2025, asserting that grant of injunction was not called for.
CR-3862-2026 Page 8 of 50
24.04.2025: Review No. 21 of 2025 in RSA No. 1086 of 2025, filed by Cosmo
was dismissed by this Court. The proceedings in the appeal are expedited.
02.05.2025: SLP No. 12455 of 2025 filed by Cosmo against order dated
09.04.2025 and 24.04.2025 was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
28.05.2025: Ld. First Appellate Court allowed the CMA No.435 of 2024.
Order dated 27.05.2024 was set aside. O7 R 11 CPC application was rejected;
and Suit was Restored.
02.07.2025: Present application under Order 39 Rule 4 was filed by the
respondents seeking modification etc., of the interim injunction dated
05.04.2024.
07.07.2025: The petitioner filed Application under Order 8 Rule 10 CPC for
striking of defence for non-filing of Written Statement within 90 days of
appearance.
10.07.2025: Reply to application under Order 8 Rule 10 CPC is filed by the
Defendants/Respondents 1-7 along with the Written Statement.
15.07.2025: As the Petitioner/Plaintiff felt that it was not provided with a
fair opportunity to respond to the application under O. 39 R. 4 and matter
was being fixed after 5 days, the Petitioner filed CR-4286-2025 seeking
more time for filing a reply, which came up for hearing on 15.07.2025 and
this Court was pleased to grant time till 25.07.2025.
25.07.2025: Plaintiff filed a reply to the application under O39 R 4 CPC.
CR-3862-2026 Page 9 of 50
07.08.2025: The respondent then filed SAO No. 45 of 2025 against order
dated 28.05.2025, whereby their application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was
dismissed and suit was restored.
24.09.2025: This Court dismissed the SAO No. 45 of 2025 vide order dated
24.09.2025 by holding that the plaint filed by the Petitioner discloses a
cause of action and prima facie there exists a triable issue in the case of the
Petitioner and permitted continuation of the suit.
06.12.2025: Respondents filed SLP (C) 38531 of 2025 laying challenge to the
order dated 24.9.2025 passed in SAO 45 of 2025.
09.01.2026: SLP (C) 38531 of 2025 dismissed inter-alia recording that:
“We have heard the Ld. Senior Counsel appearing for the
parties.
We do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned
order passed by the High Court. However, the observation
made in the impugned order will have no bearing in the further
proceedings.
We request the Learned Trial Court to dispose of the pending
suit within a period of 12 months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order. With the aforesaid observations, the special
leave petition is dismissed.”
02.02.2026: Ld. Additional Civil Judge, Gurugram vide its order dated
2.2.2026, dismissed the application filed by the Petitioner under Order VIII
Rule 10 of CPC and allowed the Written Statement filed on behalf of
Respondents no.1 to 7 to be taken on record.
CR-3862-2026 Page 10 of 50
20.03.2026: Ultimately, after almost 9 months, arguments commenced on
the application under O39 R4 CPC. Matter is kept for 03.04.2026 after partly
hearing the arguments.
02.04.2026: At this stage, respondents file CR-2869-2026 before this Court
laying challenge to the order dated 05.04.2024 granting injunction in favour
of the plaintiff. The Respondents expressed to this Court that they will be
satisfied if the said CR-2869-2026 is disposed of with the direction to the
learned Court below to decide the same in a time bound manner.
Consequentially, CR-2869-2026 was not pressed on merits and was
disposed of with direction that the application under O39 R4 CPC be
decided expeditiously, preferably within a period of 6 weeks.
03.04.2026: On 03.04.2026, further arguments on the application under
O39 R4 were heard.
10.04.2026: On 10.04.2026 matter was heard at length, and an Application
under Section 151 of CPC is filed on behalf of Respondents no.1 to 7 seeking
permission to bring on record additional affidavit and documents annexed
thereto. Order dated 10.04.2026 is passed by Ld. Additional Civil Judge,
Gurugram in CS 2886 of 2022 inter alia recording that an application under
Section 151 is filed on behalf of Respondents no.1 to 7 to bring on record
additional affidavit and documents annexed thereto.
CR-3862-2026 Page 11 of 50
18.4.2026: Petitioner files reply to application under Section 151 filed on
behalf of the Respondent no.1-7 but not to the contents of the additional
affidavit and documents annexed thereto.
21.4.2026: Impugned Order dated 21.04.2026 is passed by Ld. Additional
Civil Judge in CS 2886 of 2022 allowing the application under Section 151
filed on behalf of Respondent no.1 to 7 bringing on record additional
affidavit along with documents.
24.4.2026: Order dated 24.04.2026 passed by Ld. Additional Civil Judge,
Gurugram in CS 2886 of 2022 inter alia recording that Petitioner herein
sought time to file reply to additional affidavit and documents.
01.05.2026: Present Civil Revision Petition is filed.
02.05.2026: Order passed stating that matter stands adjourned to
11.05.2026 for filing reply to additional affidavit by the plaintiff and
arguments on application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC.
3. It is inter alia submitted by learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner that the facts narrated above clearly show that the Defendants
have intentionally proceeded in a manner to bring an element of surprise
and prevent due opportunity and fair hearing in the matter to the petitioner.
It is clear that a Civil Revision challenging the injunction order dated
05.04.2024 was filed in October 2025. The Defendants chose not to
prosecute the same. It was kept under objections. At the same time, the
Defendants chose to prosecute their application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC
CR-3862-2026 Page 12 of 50
filed on 02.07.2025, that too only on 20.03.2026. Initially, the Defendants
showed extreme emergency and even objected to grant of a three-week
period to the Plaintiff to file reply. Only upon intervention by this Court with
passing of order dated 15.07.2025, the Plaintiff/Petitioner was granted a
fair opportunity to file a response, which was done on 22.07.2025. No
urgency was expressed till March 2026 and arguments on the application
commenced only on 20.3.2026. After the arguments had started, CR 2869
of 2026 challenging the injunction order was listed on 2.4.2026 wherein,
without any basis in the pleadings, it was expressed that there has been
delay in the adjudication of the application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC. This
Court vide order dated 02.04.2026 was pleased to direct that the
application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC may be decided, expeditiously and
preferably within a period of six weeks. It is submitted that on the next date
that is 03.04.2026, the arguments continued before the Learned Trial Court.
Further arguments were heard on 10.04.2026; and at the fag end of the day
and conclusion of arguments of the Defendants, an application under
section 151 CPC was filed seeking to place on record additional documents
in the form of an additional affidavit. Ld. Senior Counsel contends that at
this stage, considering the direction of this Court to conclude hearing in 6
weeks, the Defendants extracted undue advantage and surprise with the
last minute filing of pleadings and documents that have been in existence
since much prior to the dispute and are only in possession of the
CR-3862-2026 Page 13 of 50
Defendants. It is contended that these facts clearly reflect the malafide
with which the Defendants have proceeded. Even during the passing of the
order dated 02.04.2026, no such intention to place on record any additional
document was expressed. It is argued that it is settled law that a party
cannot be permitted to take benefit of its own wrongs and that too to the
prejudice of the other. The Defendants had sufficient time and opportunity
to place on record any documents. These opportunities were never availed.
Thus, present application was an abuse of the process of law and liable to
be dismissed.
4. Ld. Senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that
Defendants had no right to place on record documents which were in
existence much prior to the filing of the written statement. Further, no leave
to file documents/permission could have been granted by the Court under
S.151 considering that the application had to be filed under O8 R1A (3) CPC.
4.1 The Order 8 R1A places an obligation on the Defendants to
place on record all documents that it considers relevant to the controversy
involved in the suit. In the present case, the Defendants sought to place
these documents on the record as accompanying documents to an
additional affidavit filed in the application under order 39, rule 4.
4.2 In the facts of the case, such an application was not
maintainable under section 151 as the matter of filing of documents is
governed by substantive provisions of the Code contained in O.8 R 1A.
CR-3862-2026 Page 14 of 50
4.3 On this issue the ld. Trial Court in para 6 of the impugned order
has returned a finding in favour of the petitioner and held that where there
is a substantive provision, the provisions of S. 151 will not be applicable.
4.4 In paragraph 8 the Learned Trial Court returned a finding that
the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1A are applicable. However, they do not bar
the filing of the application, and it is for the Court to either allow or disallow
the prayer for placing on record documents.
4.5 In the present case, there was no application under Order 8
rule 1A that had been filed by the Defendants and thus, the finding of the
Learned Trial Court is completely incorrect and perverse.
4.6 Further, the application under section 151 does not disclose
the nature of the document, the necessity of placing them on record and
any reasons for the delay in placing on record these documents.
4.7 In any case, it was not open for the Learned Trial Court to
consider the application as an application under Order 8 Rule 1A. The
discretion if any, which vested in the Learned Trial Court cannot be
exercised, arbitrarily and without application of mind to the facts of the
case. The inherent powers under S. 151 were not available or invocable.
4.8 It is submitted that the Ld. Trial Court rightly relied on State of
Uttar Pradesh and Others Vs. Roshan Singh (Dead) by Lrs. and Others
(2008) 2 SCC 488 and Suresh and Ors. Vs. Hari Dutt (deceased) and Ors.
2025(4) RCR(Civil) 374 to conclude as follows:
CR-3862-2026 Page 15 of 50
“From the above discussed law, it is clear that once specific
provisions have been provided under Code of Civil Procedure,
then aid of Section 151 CPC cannot be taken. Section 151 CPC
is attracted only when there is no provision in the Code of Civil
Procedure governing the subject matter.”
However, failed to apply the law.
5. Ld. Senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
application under section 151 (Annexures P19A) for placing on record an
additional affidavit that acts to add, alter and amend the pleadings under
Order 39 Rule 4 application, after the hearing in the matter had commenced,
was not maintainable. Even if the application is considered to be
maintainable, it does not disclose any reason for the delay in filing of the
additional affidavit, and is silent on any reasons for filing the same at the
last moment or grounds as to why the documents be taken on record.
5.1 It is contended that the Learned Trial Court has erred in
holding that the pleadings only supplement assertions made in the
application under order 39 rule 4 CPC. A comparison of the pleadings in the
application and the additional affidavit would show the clear attempt to
introduce new facts, which have no basis in the early application.
5.2 The Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the substantiation
of the pleadings can only take place when evidence is adduced by way of
affidavit, and an opportunity of cross examination is granted to the opposite
side. The taking on record of the additional affidavit in effect amounts to
CR-3862-2026 Page 16 of 50
amendment of pleadings of the application under Order 39 Rule 4. Thus,
the indirect manner of achieving this result by the Defendants is wholly
unsustainable in the eye of law.
6. The Learned Trial Court has committed a grave error of fact in
coming to the conclusion that the documents are only to “supplement
arguments” and cannot be termed to introduce any material in form of
pleadings/ evidence.
6.1 One can only supplement an argument with case law or
precedent etc but cannot be stretched to mean production of documents.
6.2 On this erroneous premise, the Learned Trial Court holds that
the documents can be taken on record. The Learned Trial Court has held
that since the documents existed prior to the filing of the 0.39 R4, and thus
these cannot be considered as new documents.
6.3 It is submitted that such finding is in direct contravention of
the settled position of law that a party has to bring all facts before the Court
at the time of filing of the Application. If these facts are introduced, at the
fag end of the hearing, they are to be considered as new documents
proposed to be entered for the first time, and their admission has to be
tested accordingly.
6.4 The order of the Court does not even refer to the documents
that are to be placed on record and therefore, the Court failed to appreciate
CR-3862-2026 Page 17 of 50
that they cannot be filed at this stage and have no basis in the pleadings of
the Application under O.39 R.4 CPC.
6.5 Each document had to be tested on its own regarding its
availability and relevance at the time of filing of the application under O. 39
R. 4 CPC. The fact that the relevance of the documents is to be seen later,
does not absolve the Defendants from filing the same in accordance with
the provisions of the CPC.
7. The ld. Trial Court while stating that the ‘validity’ of the said
documents is to be seen at the time of adjudication of the application under
Or. 39 R. 4 is erroneous. Once these documents have been taken on record
it would not be possible to question their validity at the time of arguments
– this is to be ascertained only at the stage of granting leave to file them.
7.1 The Learned Trial Court has already held the documents to be
material, without any pleading that goes to show that they were.
7.2 The observation of the Learned Court amounts to putting the
cart before the horse as the documents have been taken on record by
granting leave without any pleading or prayer for the same.
8. Assuming for arguments that the Learned Trial Court could suo
moto treat the S.151 application to be one under O8 R 1A, even then it
could not have done so without cautioning the Petitioner of its intent and
seeking objections to the mode of treatment of the application.
CR-3862-2026 Page 18 of 50
8.1 Because the rights to raise objection to an application under
O8 R 1A are very different from those that were taken by the petitioner and
had it been aware that the Learned Court was to adopt this mode, then
objections would have been taken accordingly.
8.2 The question of granting leave could not arise when the
application is not one filed under O8 R1A.
9. Section 151 is not a panacea for all ills which are to be treated
otherwise and under a well-established procedure and also states that the
power under this provision is to be exercised to ‘prevent abuse of the
process’. It is contended that in the current proceedings which are
challenged, the ld. Court has permitted such abuse rather than preventing
it by granting leave to file without putting Petitioner to notice of its intent.
10. Further, the Ld. Court accepted the contention of the Plaintiff
that once specific provisions have been provided in the CPC then aid of
S.151 cannot be taken. S. 151 is attracted only when there is no provision
in the CPC governing the subject matter based on the judgments relied.
11. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner relies upon
judgment of this Court in Suresh v. Hari Dutt (deceased), (Punjab And
Haryana) : Law Finder Doc ID # 2777621, wherein it is held that:-
“6. Per contra learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent No.1
would contend that the defendants availed more than 25
effective opportunities for leading their evidence including
secondary evidence however, they failed to examine the said
CR-3862-2026 Page 19 of 50
witnesses and now have filed the present application for
additional evidence. Hence, no fault can be found with the
order passed by the Trial Court.
7. Heard.
8. In the present case, defendant Nos.1 to 6 (petitioners and
proforma respondent No.2 herein) set up a Will dated
28.04.2014 alleged to have been executed by Smt. Bharpai. A
specific issue was framed being issue No.4 the onus of which
was cast upon defendant Nos.1 to 6 (petitioners and proforma
respondent No.2 herein). Once the onus of the issue was cast
upon defendant Nos.1 to 6 (petitioners and proforma
respondent No.2 herein) they were to lead their evidence in the
affirmative to prove the execution of the Will dated 28.04.2014.
Having failed to do so, defendant Nos.1 to 6 (petitioners and
proforma respondent No.2 herein) filed the present application
for additional evidence. A copy of the application has been
supplied in Court today by learned counsel for the plaintiff-
respondent No.1 as it was not appended with the present
revision petition. A perusal of the same reveals that there is not
a whisper in the application as to why the said evidence could
not be produced earlier. It has simply been stated that the
applicants wish to produce the affidavits of the attesting
witnesses, publication record qua sanctioning of mutation
No.1642 relating to village Dhunda and the orders passed by
Assistant Collector 1st Grade concerned.
9. After deletion of Order XVIII Rule 17A CPC by the Code of Civil
Procedure (Amendment Act, 1999) (46 of 1999) w.e.f.
01.07.2002, the amended provisions of the Code contemplate
and expect a Trial Court to hear the arguments immediately
CR-3862-2026 Page 20 of 50
after the completion of evidence and then proceed to deliver
the judgment. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.K.
Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy [2011 (11) SCC 275] has considered
the fact of deletion of Order XVIII Rule 17A and observed that
power under section 151CC will have to be used with
circumspection and care only where it is absolutely necessary,
when there is no provision in the Code governing the nature,
when bonafides of the applicant cannot be doubted, when
such exercise is to meet the ends of justice and to prevent the
abuse of process of Court. Their Lordships summarized the
scope of section 151 CPC as follows:
"10. The respondent contended that section 151 cannot be
used for re-opening evidence or for recalling witnesses. We are
not able to accept the said submission as an absolute
proposition. We however agree that section 151 of the Code
cannot be routinely invoked for reopening evidence or recalling
witnesses. The scope of section 151 has been explained by this
Court in several decisions (See: Padam Sen V. State of UP-AIR
1961 SC 218; Manoharlal Chopra v. Seth Hiralal - AIR 1962 SC
527; Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar - AIR 1964 SC 993; Ram
Chand and Sons Sugar Mills (P) Ltd. v. Kanhay Lal - AIR 1966 SC
1899; Nain Singh v. Koonwarjee - 1970(1) SCC 732; The
Newabganj Sugar Mills Co.Ltd. v. Union of India - AIR 1976 SC
1152; Jaipur Mineral Development Syndicate v. Commissioner
of Income Tax, New Delhi – AIR 1977 SC 1348; National
Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences v. C
Parameshwara - 2005 (2) SCC 256; and Vinod Seth v. Devinder
Bajaj – 2010 (8) SCC 1). We may summarize them as follows:
CR-3862-2026 Page 21 of 50
(a) Section 151 is not a substantive provision which creates or
confers any power or jurisdiction on courts. It merely
recognizes the discretionary power inherent in every court as a
necessary corollary for rendering justice in accordance with
law, to do what is 'right' and undo what is 'wrong, that is, to
do all things necessary to secure the ends of justice and prevent
abuse of its process.
(b) As the provisions of the Code are not exhaustive, section
151 recognizes and confirms that if the Code does not expressly
or impliedly cover any particular procedural aspect, the
inherent power can be used to deal with such situation or
aspect, if the ends of justice warrant it. The breadth of such
power is coextensive with the need to exercise such power on
the facts and circumstances.
(c) A Court has no power to do that which is prohibited by law
or the Code, by purported exercise of its inherent powers. If the
Code contains provisions dealing with a particular topic or
aspect, and such provisions either expressly or necessary
implication exhaust the scope of the power of the court or the
jurisdiction that may exercised in relation to that matter, the
inherent power cannot be invoked in order to cut across the
powers conferred by the Code or a manner inconsistent with
such provisions. In other words the court cannot make use of
the special provisions of Section 151 of the Code, where the
remedy or procedure is provided in the Code.
(d) The inherent powers of the court being complementary to
the powers specifically conferred, a court is free to exercise
them for the purposes mentioned in Section 151 of the Code
when the matter is not covered by any specific provision in the
CR-3862-2026 Page 22 of 50
Code and the exercise of those powers would not in any way
be in conflict with what has been expressly provided in the
Code or be against the intention of the Legislature.
(e) While exercising the inherent power, the court will be
doubly cautious, as there is no legislative guidance to deal with
the procedural situation and the exercise of power depends
upon the discretion and wisdom of the court, and the facts and
circumstances of the case. The absence of an express provision
in the code and the recognition and saving of the inherent
power of a court, should not however be treated as a carte
blanche to grant any relief.
(f) The power under section 151 will have to be used with
circumspection and care, only where it is absolutely necessary,
when there is no provision in the Code governing the matter,
when the bona fides of the applicant cannot be doubted, when
such exercise is to meet the ends of justice and to prevent
abuse of process of court.
11 to 15 xx xx xx
16. We may add a word of caution. The power under section
151 or Order 18, Rule 17 of the Code is not intended to be used
routinely, merely for the asking. If so used, it will defeat the
very purpose of various amendments to the Code to expedite
trials. But where the application is found to be bona fide and
where the additional evidence, oral or documentary, will assist
the court to clarify the evidence on the issues and will assist in
rendering justice, and the court is satisfied that non-production
earlier was for valid and sufficient reasons, the court may
exercise its discretion to recall the witnesses or permit the fresh
evidence. But if it does so, it should ensure that the process
CR-3862-2026 Page 23 of 50
does not become a protracting tactic. The court should firstly
award appropriate costs to the other party to compensate for
the delay. Secondly the court should take up and complete the
case within a fixed time schedule so that the delay is avoided.
Thirdly if the application is found to be mischievous, or
frivolous, or to cover up negligence or lacunae, it should be
rejected with heavy costs. If the application is allowed and the
evidence is permitted and ultimately the court finds that
evidence was not genuine or relevant and did not warrant the
reopening of the case recalling the witnesses, it can be made a
ground for awarding exemplary costs apart from ordering
prosecution if it involves fabrication of evidence. If the party
had an opportunity to produce such evidence earlier but did
not do so or if the evidence already led is clear and
unambiguous, or if it comes to the conclusion that the object
of the application is merely to protract the proceedings, the
court should reject the application. If the evidence sought to be
produced is an electronic record, the court may also listen to
the recording before granting or rejecting the application."”
12. It is accordingly prayed that the present Revision petition be
allowed, and the impugned order be set aside.
13. Per Contra learned Senior Counsel for the respondents
submits that vide the impugned order, it has been directed as follows: –
“10. Thus, in view of the above discussion, the application for placing
on record additional documents and additional affidavit moved by ap-
plicants/defendant no.1 to 7 stands allowed. However, liberty is
granted to the plaintiff to file reply to the pleadings taken in additional
CR-3862-2026 Page 24 of 50
affidavit in order to argue on main application under Order 39 Rule 4
CPC.”
14. It is contended that, therefore, no prejudice has been caused to
the petitioner as adequate opportunity has been granted to him to file reply
to the additional affidavit.
15. It is submitted that therefore, the limited issue that arises for
consideration in the present Civil Revision is whether the Ld. Civil Judge has
rightly allowed the application filed by the Respondents for bringing on rec-
ord an additional affidavit along with documents, by way of an application
under Section 151 CPC. Especially keeping in view, the fact that the said ap-
plication has been filed by the Respondents for the purposes of hearing of
the application filed by Respondents under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC pending
adjudication before Ld. Trial Court.
16. At the very outset, it is submitted that the present Civil Revision,
invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court under Article 227
of the Constitution of India, is wholly misconceived and not maintainable. It
is settled law that the jurisdiction under Article 227 is supervisory and not
appellate in nature, to be exercised sparingly only in cases of patent perver-
sity, jurisdictional error, manifest injustice, or an error apparent on the face
of the record. The said jurisdiction cannot be invoked to challenge every in-
terlocutory or procedural order passed by the Ld. Trial Court merely because
a party is dissatisfied with the same. [Shalini Shyam Shetty vs Rajendra
CR-3862-2026 Page 25 of 50
Shankar Patil (2010) 8 SCC 329 Para 67; Jai Singh vs Municipal Corporation
of Delhi (2010) 9 SCC 385 Para 15 to 17 and Estralla Rubber vs Dass Estate
(P) Ltd. (2001) 8 SCC 97 Para 6-7]
17. It is further submitted that the Impugned Order does not suffer
from any such infirmity warranting interference. The Ld. Trial Court has
merely permitted the Respondents to bring on record an additional affidavit
along with documents which are germane to, and arise directly from, the
issues involved in the pending application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC, for
effective adjudication thereof. Significantly, the Ld. Trial Court has expressly
granted liberty to the Petitioner to file a reply to the said affidavit/docu-
ments, thereby ensuring complete procedural fairness and opportunity of
response. No prejudice is caused to the Petitioner. Thus, in the absence of
any jurisdictional error, perversity, or error apparent on the face of record,
the present petition is liable to be dismissed at the threshold.
18. It is further submitted that this Court, vide order dated
02.04.2026 had directed expeditious disposal of the application under Order
XXXIX Rule 4 CPC, preferably within six weeks. The present petition, assailing
a purely procedural order passed in aid of adjudication of the said applica-
tion, is nothing but an attempt to delay the proceedings.
19. Ld. Senior counsel for the respondents further submits that the
application seeking to bring on record an additional affidavit along with doc-
uments has been rightly filed under Section 151 CPC in the pending
CR-3862-2026 Page 26 of 50
application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC. Section 151 CPC confers wide inher-
ent powers upon the Court, including the inherent jurisdiction to permit ad-
ditional documents/material to be brought on record where such material is
necessary for effective adjudication and to secure the ends of justice. In such
circumstances, the inherent powers of the Court under S. 151 CPC can validly
be invoked to pass such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice
and to ensure complete and effective adjudication of the controversy.
20. Ld. Senior counsel argues that the Petitioner erroneously seeks
to conflate the present issue with Order VIII Rule 1A CPC by contending that
all documents ought to have been filed along with the written statement.
The said contention is wholly misplaced. Firstly, the present application does
not arise in the context of completion of pleadings, but in the adjudication
of a pending application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC, wherein the Respond-
ents sought to place material germane to the issues arising therein. Secondly,
even without prejudice to the aforesaid, Order VIII Rule 1A itself contem-
plates that documents not filed earlier may be brought on record with the
leave of the Court.
21. It is settled law that procedural provisions are handmaids of jus-
tice, and the Court’s inherent powers under Section 151 CPC remain availa-
ble to permit bringing on record material necessary for proper adjudication,
where the same advances the cause of justice and causes no prejudice to the
opposite party. In the present case, the documents sought to be brought on
CR-3862-2026 Page 27 of 50
record arise directly from, and are intrinsically connected with, the contro-
versy involved in the pending Order XXXIX Rule 4 application. The Ld. Trial
Court has exercised its discretion judiciously in permitting the same to be
placed on record to aid effective adjudication.
22. Significantly, the Impugned Order itself grants express liberty to
the Petitioner to file a reply to the additional affidavit/documents. Thus, full
opportunity has been afforded to the Petitioner, and no prejudice or injus-
tice whatsoever has been caused. In such circumstances, the challenge to the
Impugned Order is entirely misconceived. No prejudice is caused to the Pe-
titioner or pleaded in case the documents are brought on record, so the Civil
Revision is misplaced.
23. It is further submitted that, as specifically recorded by the Ld.
Trial Court in paragraph 9 of the Impugned Order, all documents annexed to
the additional affidavit find clear reference in the Respondents’ application
filed under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC. The said documents have not been in-
troduced to set up any fresh case, alter the nature of the existing proceed-
ings, or take the Petitioner by surprise. Rather, the documents merely ema-
nate from and are intrinsically connected with the case already pleaded by
the Respondents in the pending application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC.
The limited purpose of bringing the said documents on record is only to sub-
stantiate and bolster the Respondents’ existing case in the Order XXXIX Rule
4 proceedings, and to assist the Ld. Trial Court in effective and complete
CR-3862-2026 Page 28 of 50
adjudication of the issues arising therein. The Impugned Order, therefore,
reflects a proper exercise of judicial discretion aimed at ensuring that the
controversy is adjudicated on the basis of all relevant material, rather than
in a truncated manner.
24. It is further pertinent to note that several of the documents
sought to be brought on record are public and official documents in nature,
including layout plans, registered gift deeds executed with State authorities,
and applications for grant of licences submitted before the competent State
authorities. The remaining material, including current photographs depicting
the Respondents’ ongoing projects situated on the Suit Land, is merely
demonstrative material placed on record to reflect the present factual posi-
tion on the ground. None of the said documents are of a clandestine or sur-
prise nature so as to cause any prejudice to the Petitioner.
25. It is pointed out that in the present Civil Revision, the Petitioner
has, inter alia, sought stay of the hearing of the application under Order
XXXIX Rule 4 CPC till adjudication of the present Revision Petition. The said
relief sought is directly contrary to, and in the teeth of, the binding judicial
directions already operating in the matter. The interim stay granted causes
grave prejudice to the Respondents. Thus, it is necessary that the application
under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC maybe decided expeditiously.
26. It is reiterated that this is especially so as this Court, vide order
dated 02.04.2026 passed in the earlier revision proceedings between the
CR-3862-2026 Page 29 of 50
parties, had specifically directed expeditious disposal of the application un-
der Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC, preferably within a period of six weeks. Further,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 09.01.2026 passed in SLP (C)
No. 38531 of 2025, directed disposal of the suit itself within a period of one
year. Admittedly, neither of the aforesaid orders has been challenged by the
Petitioner and the same continue to bind the parties.
27. In such circumstances, the present Revision Petition, seeking to
stall adjudication of the application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC itself, is
nothing but a calculated attempt to delay the proceedings, multiply rounds
of litigation, and frustrate the timelines fixed by this Hon’ble Court and the
Hon’ble Supreme Court. Instead of permitting adjudication of the pending
application on merits, the Petitioner has chosen to assail a purely discretion-
ary procedural order, passed in aid of adjudication, which causes no preju-
dice whatsoever and expressly preserves the Petitioner’s full right of re-
sponse. Such orders ordinarily do not warrant interference under Article 227
of the Constitution of India.
28. The present challenge is directed against a purely discretionary
procedural order passed by the Ld. Trial Court in aid of adjudication, which
preserves the Petitioner’s full right of response. Such orders ordinarily do not
warrant interference under Article 227. The present proceedings, therefore,
are a clear abuse of process and deserve to be rejected with costs.
CR-3862-2026 Page 30 of 50
29. In rebuttal, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that there is not a single line in the instant application (Annexure
P19A) as to why said application for placing on record additional affidavit
should be allowed especially when it has been moved at belated stage in
the midst of arguments. As regards argument of the learned Senior Counsel
for the respondents in respect of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has contended that
there is an error apparent in the impugned order inasmuch as the legal
question of giving an opportunity to the petitioner in terms of Order 8 Rule
1A CPC has not been satisfied. It is contended that the question is the
relevance of the documents now sought to be produced by the respondents
at a highly belated stage after almost one year of filing of application under
Order 39 Rule 4 CPC and as to why the said documents were not produced
when application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC was filed.
30. No other argument is made on behalf of the parties. I have
heard learned Senior counsel and given my thoughtful consideration to the
rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties. I find merit in the
submissions advanced of the ld. Senior Counsel for the respondents.
31. The first contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that
respondents are deliberately trying to protract the trial as, despite the fact
that injunction had been granted in favour of the petitioner vide order
dated 05.04.2024, yet application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC had been filed
CR-3862-2026 Page 31 of 50
by the respondents only on 02.07.2025. It has also been contended that
even though defendant filed written statement at a highly belated stage, all
documents were not included with the written statement. Therefore,
conduct of the respondents disentitles them to any exercise of discretion
by the Court to place on record any additional pleadings or documents.
However, the said contention of the petitioner is misleading as
a perusal of the case timeline enumerated hereinabove shows that the
present CS-2886-2022 was filed on 1.7.2022; whereafter respondents had
filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on 9.8.2022; which was
allowed by the learned trial Court and plaint came to be rejected vide order
dated 27.5.2024; against which petitioner filed CMA-435-2024, which was
allowed only on 28.5.2025 and suit was restored; whereafter respondents
filed application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC on 2.7.2025; and written
statement was filed by the respondents on 10.7.2025. Repeated submission
on behalf of the petitioner that written statement was filed more than 90
days after service of summons is misleading as Question of filing written
statement or any application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC in the interregnum
did not arise as plaint stood rejected. Thus, there does not appear to be any
apparent delay on part of the respondents. Even a perusal of the zimni
orders (Annexure P16 and P17) ranging from 25.07.2025 to 20.03.2026
shows that matter has primarily been adjourned at request of both parties.
In this regard, it is also pertinent to note that the petitioner had preferred
CR-3862-2026 Page 32 of 50
an application dated 7.7.2025 under Order 8 Rule 10 CPC, praying for
striking of defence of the respondents; which was dismissed vide order
2.2.2026. Nothing has been brought to the notice of this Court that the said
order dated 2.2.2026 has been challenged by the petitioner. Therefore,
imputation of the petitioner in respect of deliberately delaying conduct of
the respondents is fractious.
32. The second contention on behalf of the learned Senior Counsel
for the petitioner is that in the midst of arguments in application under
Order 39 Rule 4 CPC, the respondents had preferred application dated
10.04.2026 (Annexure P19-A) for placing on record additional Affidavit on
behalf of defendants No.1 to 7 thereby catching the petitioner by surprise;
and vide the said application, the respondents had sought permission only
to place on record an additional Affidavit, and not any additional
documents. However, even the said contention is misleading - and is based
on a piecemeal reading of the application dated 10.4.2026. A perusal of the
averments made in Paras 2 and 3 of the said application read as follows: -
“2. That the Applicants filed a Written Statement to the present
suit filed by the Plaintiff. The Applicants crave leave of this
Hon'ble Court to rely upon the contents of the Written
Statement filed on behalf of the Applicants as the same are not
being repeated herein for the sake of brevity.
3. That the present application is being filed on behalf of the
Applicants for placing on record an additional affidavit on
behalf of Defendant no.1 to 7 dated 10.04.2026 on record
CR-3862-2026 Page 33 of 50
which is necessary and relevant for the just and effective
adjudication of the application filed by the Applicants under
Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The
said affidavit along with the documents annexed thereto have
a direct bearing on the issues arising in the interim proceedings
and are essential for a proper appreciation of the facts and
circumstances by this Hon'ble Court.”
33. Thus, a complete reading of the above extract of the instant
application dated 10.04.2026 (Annexure P19/A) filed under Section 151 CPC
shows that along with the said affidavit, respondents had duly sought to
place on record documents as well. The respondents have categorically
stated in Para 2 and 3 above that the Affidavit is filed “along with documents
annexed thereto” which have a direct bearing on the issues arising in the
interim proceedings. Respondents have further categorically stated that the
said documents are necessary and relevant for the Just and effective
adjudication of the application of the respondents under Order 39 Rule 4
CPC. Therefore, contention of the petitioner that vide the said application
respondents had only sought to bring on record an additional affidavit, is
misleading and incorrect.
34. The next contention of the petitioners that the said documents
have no ‘basis to previous pleadings’; and that ‘new and fresh averments
were permitted to be added’, or that petitioner has been caught by surprise,
is also factually incorrect. It has also been argued on behalf of the petitioner
CR-3862-2026 Page 34 of 50
that ld. Trial Court has held the documents to be material, without any
pleading that goes to show that they were relevant. These contentions of
the petitioner are incorrect. Firstly, the substrate for the present additional
documents has already been laid by the respondents in their application
dated 2.7.2025/P-10 filed under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC, wherein pleadings
have been made with reference to the documents now sought to be placed
on record. Relevant extract/pleadings of the respondents in said application
under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC dated 02.07.2025 (Annexure P10) is as follows:-
“16. That pursuant to the issuance of licenses by DCP from time
to time, Applicants carried out the development on the land
forming part of suit property. It would also be germane to
mention that after having obtained Licenses, various sanctions
and permissions pursuant to payment of exorbitant
fee/cess/charges have also been obtained. Various projects
namely M3M Capital Phase-1, M3M Capital Phase-2, M3M
Capital Phase-3, M3M Mansion, M3M Mansion PH- 2,
Smartworld One DXP Street, Smartworld One DXP, Smartworld
One DXP Phase-2 are part of the aforementioned Licenses and
over the land forming part of the Suit Land. Third-party rights
stand in the form of thousands of home buyers stand created
in respect of the Projects, after having obtained Registration
Certificates from Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority,
Gurugram. Substantial development has taken place
subsequent to the sanctioning of the layout plans pertaining to
the Projects. As such the Applicants have been carrying out
their obligations, which are time sensitive, under the licenses
CR-3862-2026 Page 35 of 50
granted to them. Attached are photographs of the
development and construction by the Applicants as Annexure
A-4.”
17. That on account of the facts delineated above, it is
submitted that the circumstances in which the injunction had
been granted against the Applicants, have changed
considerably which is also on account of the fact that the
injunction order had been granted to the Plaintiff on
05.04.2024, but the same was in effect only till 27.05.2024 and
from 27.05.2024 till 09.04.2025 there had been no order of
injunction against the Applicants. In the interregnum period
the Applicants, who have been found to have a clear and
marketable title by the competent authorities, had been
granted various sanctions for carrying out development of the
land which is part of the suit property. Furthermore, the
Applicants are under a bounden duty to carry out the statutory
obligations under the Licences granted to them in a time bound
manner and had to thus carry out with the development
activities. Thus, at this stage, it is necessary to allow the
Applicants to continue its activities qua the Suit property and
accordingly the injunction order needs to be discharged/set
aside as there has been an evident change in circumstances
from the time the injunction order dated 05.04.2024 had been
passed against the Applicants.”
35. Thus, respondents have clearly demonstrated that documents
annexed to the additional affidavit find reference in the original application
filed by the respondents under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC. By no stretch of the
imagination, can it be said that new facts have been pleaded or introduced
CR-3862-2026 Page 36 of 50
in the present additional affidavit or that the petitioner has been caught by
surprise. In any event, the trial court shall ascertain the relevancy of these
said documents.
36. Moreover, upon a detailed perusal of the said applications
(Annexures P-10 and P19-A) it is seen that reference is made to various
documents such as Registration Certificates; Licences granted by the DTCP;
pursuant to which various sanctions and permissions were given after
payment of fee/cess/charges; and pursuant to which third-party rights have
been created by the respondents in the projects undertaken by the
respondents after obtaining Registration Certificates/licenses from the
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Gurugram. Accordingly, the
respondents now only seek to place on record the following documents as
already mentioned in the applications: -
S.No. PARTICULARS PAGES
1. Additional Affidavit on behalf of
defendant No.1 to 7
1-9
2. Annexure-1
A copy of the application dated
21.06.2018
10-12
3. Annexure-2
A copy of the amendment application
dated 06.09.2018
13-14
4. Annexure-3
Copy of licence application dated
18.07.2019
Annexure 3A
Copy of Tabular chart
15
16-17
5. Annexure-4 (Colly)
Copies of TDR certificates
18-20
6. Annexure-5 21-27
CR-3862-2026 Page 37 of 50
A copy of the registered Gift Deed
dated 30.01.2023 by defendant No.3
i.e. Starcity Realtech Private Ltd. to the
Governor, State of Haryana for 1.9875
acres situated in the revenue estate of
Sector 113- Village Chauma, Gurgaon
7. Annexure-6
A copy of the Registered Gift Deed
dated 30.01.2023 by defendant No.5
i.e. Vibrant Infratech Private Ltd. along
with Targe Buildcon Limited to the
Governor, State of Haryana for
2.309375 acres situated in the revenue
estate of Sector 113 – Village Chauma,
Gurgaon
28-35
8. Annexure-7
Layout plan of Sector 113, Gurugram
36
9. Annexure-8 (Colly)
Photographs demonstrating
construction over the suit land
37-43
10. Annexure-9 (Colly)
Layout plans of the projects -M3M
Capital, M3M One DXP Street and
M3M Mansion Phase 1
44-46
11. Annexure-10 (Colly)
A copy of the Certificate by Chartered
Accountants showing costs incurred in
various projects
47-48
12. Proof of Service
37. Details of the above-said documents are borne in the
accompanying Affidavit; pleadings in respect of which already find mention
in the application under Order 39 Rule 4. Thus, the defendants have duly
disclosed in their application, the relevance of the documents with the
dispute at hand. From the above facts, it is also clear that vide the said
Affidavit, and the documents annexed therewith, the respondents are only
CR-3862-2026 Page 38 of 50
substantiating the claims made by them in the application dated
02.07.2025 (Annexure P10) filed under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC; inasmuch as
respondents are primarily demonstrating grant of licenses; development of
project; and expenses incurred by the respondents in the development of
the said projects i.e. buttress their plea of subsequent events/change in
circumstance, as required to be shown under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC for
modification of injunction.
38. In this view of the matter, no leave in terms of Order 8 Rule 1A
CPC was required to be sought from the Court as contended. The petitioner
has raised a legal objection that the aforesaid documents could not have
been brought on record merely by way of application/affidavit; and the
same could have been brought on record only by way of an application
under Order 8 Rule 1A (3) CPC after taking leave of Court. It has been
contended that failure to do so, has resulted in great prejudice to the
petitioner as petitioner has been denied the opportunity to lead evidence
to the contrary; and the same is therefore an abuse of process of Court and
is not maintainable. However, again, there is no merit to the said argument.
39. Order 8 Rule 1A reads as follows: -
“(1) Where the Defendants/Respondents bases his defence
upon a document or relies upon any document in his
possession or power, in support of his defence or claim for set-
off or counter-claim, he shall enter such document in a list, and
shall produce it in Court when the written statement is
CR-3862-2026 Page 39 of 50
presented by him and shall, at the same time, deliver the
document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the written
statement.
(2) Where any such document is not in the possession or power
of the defendant, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose
possession or power it is.
[(3) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the
Defendants/Respondents under this rule, but, is not so
produced 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 documents—
(a) produced for the cross-examination of the plaintiff's
witnesses, or
(b) handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.]”
40. A bare reading of the above provision shows that leave of the
Court is required to be taken where the respondent/defendant has failed to
produce a document on which his defence is based along with his written
statement. In the present case, respondents are not seeking to produce the
documents along with their written statement/defence; but are only
seeking to supplement the pleadings made by them in their application
under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC. The documents sought to be produced by the
respondents do not form part of the written statement; but rather to
supplement and substantiate the averments made by them in their
application dated 2.7.2025 (Annexure P10).
CR-3862-2026 Page 40 of 50
41. It needs no gainsaying that Order 8 Rule 1A applies to
documents supporting the "defence"/written statement; whereas an
application under Order 39 Rule 4 is an interlocutory proceeding to vary/set
aside an injunction based on new circumstances, not just a ‘defence’, which
allows for fresh evidence. Therefore, documents in support of an
application under Rule 4 are liable to be accepted if they are relevant to the
change in circumstance. As noted above, in the present case, the
documents sought to be produced by the respondents prima facie reflect
changed circumstance. Therefore, while the spirit of providing documents
early exists, the strict procedural constraints of Order 8 Rule 1A would not
be applicable to interlocutory applications filed under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC.
42. The argument on behalf of the petitioner is misconceived also
because under Sub-rule 3 procedural discretion is granted to the Court, and
second opportunity is granted to the defendant to take on record
documents which are necessary for proper adjudication. As held by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled – Sugandhi (Dead) v. P. Rajkumar (SC)
: Law Finder Doc Id # 1756721:
“7. ……Sub-rule (1) mandates the defendant to produce the
documents in his possession before the court and file the same along
with his written statement. He must list out the documents which are
in his possession or power as well as those which are not. In case the
defendant does not file any document or copy thereof along with his
written statement, such a document shall not be allowed to be
CR-3862-2026 Page 41 of 50
received in evidence on behalf of the defendant at the hearing of the
suit. However, this will not apply to a document produced for cross-
examination of the plaintiff's witnesses or handed over to a witness
merely to refresh his memory. Sub-rule (3) states that a document
which is not produced at the time of filing of the written statement,
shall not be received in evidence except with the leave of the court.
Rule (1) of Order 13 of C.P.C. again makes it mandatory for the parties
to produce their original documents before settlement of issues.
8. Sub-rule (3), as quoted above, provides a second opportunity
to the defendant to produce the documents which ought to have
been produced in the court along with the written statement, with
the leave of the court. The discretion conferred upon the court to
grant such leave is to be exercised judiciously. While there is no
straight jacket formula, this leave can be granted by the court on a
good cause being shown by the defendant.
9. It is often said that procedure is the handmaid of justice.
Procedural and technical hurdles shall not be allowed to come in the
way of the court while doing substantial justice. If the procedural
violation does not seriously cause prejudice to the adversary party,
courts must lean towards doing substantial justice rather than
relying upon procedural and technical violation. We should not forget
the fact that litigation is nothing but a journey towards truth which
is the foundation of justice and the court is required to take
appropriate steps to thrash out the underlying truth in every dispute.
Therefore, the court should take a lenient view when an application
is made for production of the documents under sub-rule (3).”
CR-3862-2026 Page 42 of 50
43. Reference may also be made to another judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Levaku Pedda Reddamma v. Gottumukkala
Venkata Subbamma, (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2008070 to clarify the
applicability of the provision of Order 8 Rule 1A. In this case, the Andhra
Pradesh High Court affirmed the order passed by the trial Court refusing to
permit the defendant to produce additional documents in terms of Order
VIII Rule 1A(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The defendant
approached the Apex Court; and Their Lordships held as follows: –
“5. We find that the trial Court as well as the High Court have
gravely erred in law in not permitting the defendants to produce
documents, the relevance of which can be examined by the trial Court
on the basis of the evidence to be led, but to deprive a party to the
suit not to file documents even if there is some delay will lead to
denial of justice.
6. It is well settled that rules of procedure are hand-maid of
justice and, therefore, even if there is some delay, the trial Court
should have imposed some costs rather than to decline the
production of the documents itself.
XXX XXX XXX
8. Mr. Nazki states that the plaintiffs-respondents should be
permitted to lead additional evidence, if any, on the basis of the
documents now produced by the defendants. We accept the request.
The Plaintiff shall lead additional evidence, if any, before the
defendants are given an opportunity to lead evidence to rebut the
evidence produced by the plaintiff.”
CR-3862-2026 Page 43 of 50
Therefore, from the above it is clear that in the present facts
and circumstances of the case, reliance of the petitioner upon the provision
of Order 8 Rule 1A CPC is misconceived. At the risk of repetition, it is
reiterated that the said documents are only supplemental to the arguments,
averments, and pleadings already raised by the respondents in their
application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC dated 2.7.2025.
44. Needless to say, an application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC can
even be filed before the filing of written statement. Therefore, if the
respondent wants to substantiate its application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC,
he can surely not be prevented from doing so by way of filing additional
affidavit and documents. Vide the additional affidavit and the documents
annexed thereto, the respondent has merely substantiated his averments
in Annexure P10 by demonstrating that substantial development has taken
place on ground, and third-party rights have been created. The averments
of the respondents are already contained in the application (Annexure P10);
which have merely been buttressed vide the instant additional affidavit. By
way of example, it is mentioned that the instant additional affidavit also
contains two documents from the Chartered Accountant certifying the
expenses incurred by the respondent in undertaking the above-said
development. Therefore, all the averments are already contained in the
application (Annexure P10), which are merely being supplemented by
Annexure P19A; which has been filed by the respondents to aid and assist
CR-3862-2026 Page 44 of 50
the Ld. Trial Court in the hearing and adjudication of the application filed
under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC.
45. Furthermore, Order 8 Rule 1A CPC is a substantive provision;
whereas Section 151 CPC is a procedural provision conferring vast powers
upon the Court to ensure Justice; and is therefore to be liberally construed;
as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in celebrated judgment of “K.K.
Velusamy Vs. N. Palanisamy” (2011) 11 SCC 275, that:-
“11. There is no specific provision in the Code enabling the
parties to reopen the evidence for the purpose of further
examination-in-chief or cross-examination. Section 151 of the
Code provides that nothing in the Code shall be deemed to limit
or otherwise affect the inherent powers of the court to make
such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to
prevent the abuse of the process of the court. In the absence of
any provision providing for reopening of evidence or recall of
any witness for further examination or cross-examination, for
purposes other than securing clarification required by the court,
the inherent power under Section 151 of the Code, subject to
its limitations, can be invoked in appropriate cases to reopen
the evidence and/or recall witnesses for further examination.
This inherent power of the court is not affected by the express
power conferred upon the court under Order 18 Rule 17 of the
Code to recall any witness to enable the court to put such
question to elicit any clarifications.
12. The respondent contended that Section 151 cannot be used
for reopening evidence or for recalling witnesses. We are not
able to accept the said submission as an absolute proposition.
CR-3862-2026 Page 45 of 50
We however agree that Section 151 of the Code cannot be
routinely invoked for reopening evidence or recalling witnesses.
The scope of Section 151 has been explained by this Court in
several decisions [see Padam Sen v. State of U.P, Manohar Lal
Chopra v. Seth Hiralal, Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar, Ram
Chand and Sons Sugar Mills (P) Ltd. v. Kanhayalal Bhargava,
Nain Singh v. Koonwarjee, Newabganj Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v.
Union of India, Jaipur Mineral Development Syndicate v. CIT,
National Institute of Mental Health & Neuro Sciences v. C.
Parameshwaral and Vinod Seth v. Devinder Bajaj']. We may
summarise them as follows:
(a) Section 151 is not a substantive provision which creates or
confers any power or jurisdiction on courts. It merely
recognises the discretionary power inherent in every court as a
necessary corollary for rendering justice in accordance with
law, to do what is "right" and undo what is "wrong", that is, to
do all things necessary to secure the ends of justice and prevent
abuse of its process.
(b) As the provisions of the Code are not exhaustive, Section
151 recognises and confirms that if the Code does not expressly
or impliedly cover any particular procedural aspect, the
inherent power can be used to deal with such situation or
aspect, if the ends of justice warrant it. The breadth of such
power is coextensive with the need to exercise such power on
the facts and circumstances.
(c) A court has no power to do that which is prohibited by law
or the Code, by purported exercise of its inherent powers. If the
Code contains provisions dealing with a particular topic or
aspect, and such provisions either expressly or by necessary
CR-3862-2026 Page 46 of 50
implication exhaust the scope of the power of the court or the
jurisdiction that may be exercised in relation to that matter, the
inherent power cannot be invoked in order to cut across the
powers conferred by the Code or in a manner inconsistent with
such provisions. In other words the court cannot make use of
the special provisions of Section 151 of the Code, where the
remedy or procedure is provided in the Code.
(d) The inherent powers of the court being complementary to
the powers specifically conferred, a court is free to exercise
them for the purposes mentioned in Section 151 of the Code
when the matter is not covered by any specific provision in the
Code and the exercise of those powers would not in any way
be in conflict with what has been expressly provided in the
Code or be against the intention of the legislature.
(e) While exercising the inherent power, the court will be
doubly cautious, as there is no legislative guidance to deal with
the procedural situation and the exercise of power depends
upon the discretion and wisdom of the court, and in the facts
and circumstances of the case. The absence of an express
provision in the Code and the recognition and saving of the
inherent power of a court, should not however be treated as a
carte blanche to grant any relief.
(f) The power under Section 151 will have to be used with
circumspection and care, only where it is absolutely necessary,
when there is no provision in the Code governing the matter,
when the bona fides of the applicant cannot be doubted, when
such exercise is to meet the ends of justice and to prevent
abuse of process of court.”
CR-3862-2026 Page 47 of 50
46. I also find merit in the argument advanced on behalf of the
respondents to the effect that the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227
of the Constitution of India can be resorted to only in a situation where
“grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse, violation of fundamental
principles of law or justice” is made out. Reliance in this regard is placed
upon judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Estralla Rubber Vs. Dass
Estate (P) Ltd.” (2001) 8 SCC 97, wherein it is held that:-
“6. The scope and ambit of exercise of power and jurisdiction
by a High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is
examined and explained in a number of decisions of this Court.
The exercise of power under this article involves a duty on the
High Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals within the
bounds of their authority and to see that they do the duty
expected or required of them in a legal manner. The High Court
is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds
of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the
jurisdiction of the subordinate courts or tribunals. Exercise of
this power and interfering with the orders of the courts or
tribunals is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and
flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice,
where if the High Court does not interfere, a grave injustice
remains uncorrected. It is also well settled that the High Court
while acting under this article cannot exercise its power as an
appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that
of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not
apparent on the face of the record. The High Court can set
aside or ignore the findings of facts of an inferior court or
CR-3862-2026 Page 48 of 50
tribunal, if there is no evidence at all to justify or the finding is
so perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly come to
such a conclusion, which the court or tribunal has come to.
7. This Court in Ahmedabad Mfg. & Calico Ptg. Co. Ltd. v. Ram
Tahel Ramnand in AIR para 12 has stated that the power under
Article 227 of the Constitution is intended to be used sparingly
and only in appropriate cases, for the purpose of keeping the
subordinate courts and tribunals within the bounds of their
authority and, not for correcting mere errors. Reference also
has been made in this regard to the case Waryam Singh V.
Amarnath. This Court in Bathutmal Raichand Oswal v.
LaxmibaiR. Tarte has observed that the power of
superintendence under Article 227 cannot be invoked to
correct an error of fact which only a superior court can do in
exercise of its statutory power as a court of appeal and that the
High Court in exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227
cannot convert itself into a court of appeal when the legislature
has not conferred a right of appeal. Judged by these
pronounced principles, the High Court clearly exceeded its
jurisdiction under c Article 227 in passing the impugned order.”
47. The aforesaid view has been reiterated by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in “Garment Craft Vs. Prakash Chand Goel” (2022) 4 SCC
181, wherein it is held that: -
“15. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are clearly of
the view that the impugned order is contrary to law and cannot
be sustained for several reasons, but primarily for deviation
from the limited jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under
CR-3862-2026 Page 49 of 50
Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court
exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of
first appeal to re-appreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts
upon which the determination under challenge is based.
Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or
even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be
supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own decision
on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or tribunal.
The jurisdiction exercised is in the nature of correctional
jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant
abuse, violation of fundamental principles of law or justice. The
power under Article 227 is exercised sparingly in appropriate
cases, like when there is no evidence at all to justify, or the
finding is so perverse that no reasonable person can possibly
come to such a conclusion that the court or tribunal has come
to. It is axiomatic that such discretionary relief must be
exercised to ensure there is no miscarriage of justice.”
48. Even otherwise, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner
as, in Para 10 of the impugned order dated 21.04.2026, the trial Court has
granted liberty to the petitioner “to file reply to the pleadings taken in addi-
tional affidavit in order to argue on main application under Order 39 Rule 4
CPC”. It is pertinent to note that even prior to the passing of the Impugned
Order the Petitioner had already filed its reply dated 18.04.2026 to the ap-
plication under Section 151 CPC seeking to bring on record the additional
affidavit and documents. Despite this, and notwithstanding the liberty
CR-3862-2026 Page 50 of 50
expressly granted thereafter by the Ld. Trial Court to file a reply to the addi-
tional affidavit and documents themselves, the Petitioner has chosen not to
do so, and has instead instituted the present proceedings, thereby unneces-
sarily delaying the adjudication of the pending application under Order 39
Rule 4 CPC. While simultaneously decrying the delay allegedly caused by the
respondents in the disposal of the said application, despite express direc-
tions of this Court for expeditious disposal. It is also pertinent to note that
the Civil Suit is presently at the stage where pleadings are yet to be com-
pleted, and the Petitioner has not yet filed its replication.
49. In the present case, the petitioner has not been able to make
out any ground that calls for exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
50. The judgment relied upon by learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner in Suresh (supra) is distinguishable on facts and law.
51. In view of the above discussion, the present Revision Petition
stands dismissed.
52. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of.
(Nidhi Gupta)
18.05.2026 Judge
Sunena
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes
Legal Notes
Add a Note....