Krishan Kumar v. Shanti Devi And Another, Delhi High Court, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner challenged two impugned orders dated 15^th January, 2019 and 12^th March, 2019. The grievance arose because the plaintiffs were permitted to file a replication on 15^th January, 2019, and admission/denial was closed on the same date. However, the trial court proceeded to settle issues and directed affidavits-in-evidence to be filed without waiting for the replication to be filed. Subsequently, on 12^th March, 2019, the replication along with additional documents was taken on record, though evidence had not yet been filed. The petitioner contended that this procedure was unknown to law, as the replication introduced new and additional pleas not originally pleaded in the plaint, accompanied by voluminous documents. The petitioner argued that once issues are framed and the case proceeds to evidence, replication should not be permitted to be taken on record.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the trial court erred in permitting the plaintiffs to file replication after framing of issues and commencement of evidence filing.

Whether issues should be framed before or after the replication is filed when permission to file replication is granted.

What procedural safeguards should be followed when replication and additional documents are filed after the framing of issues.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner’s Arguments

The plaintiffs were wrongly permitted to file replication after admission/denial was closed and issues were framed.

The trial court prematurely framed issues and directed affidavits-in-evidence without waiting for the replication.

The replication contained new pleas and voluminous additional documents not initially pleaded, which should not be allowed after issues are framed.

Allowing replication and documents after issues are framed results in procedural irregularity and prejudice to the petitioner.

Respondents’ Arguments

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondents' legal arguments.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court examined the impugned orders and acknowledged that if permission is granted to file replication, the issues should only be framed after considering the replication and any accompanying documents. Framing issues prior to perusing the replication could lead to an incomplete and premature set of issues, as the replication may raise new facts or legal issues. In the present case, although permission to file replication and framing of issues both occurred in the presence of all counsels without opposition, the replication with additional documents was filed subsequently.

In view of these facts, the court directed that the replication and documents be taken on record, but the documents must be proved in accordance with law. The defendant must be given an opportunity to admit or deny the newly filed documents via a statement of admission/denial as per the Civil Procedure Code. The defendant was also permitted to file a sur-replication or sur-rejoinder along with the admission/denial statement within four weeks. The court further emphasized that to avoid procedural complexities and delays, trial courts must ensure that if replication permission is granted, issues should be framed only after the replication is filed. The trial court was directed to consider, after perusing the replication and any sur-rejoinder, whether additional issues or amendments to existing issues are necessary before proceeding with evidence filing.

Holding and Implications

The court disposed of the petition and all pending applications with directions to the trial court regarding procedural conduct.

The direct effect of this decision is procedural guidance for trial courts to frame issues only after replication is filed when replication permission is granted, ensuring that all relevant pleadings are considered before finalizing issues. This avoids premature and incomplete issue framing and potential procedural anomalies. No new precedent was established beyond these procedural directions.

Krishan Kumar v. Shanti Devi And Another

$~36 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI th

Date of decision: 29 November, 2019 + CM(M) 1694/2019 & CM APPL. 51335/2019

KRISHAN KUMAR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Anil K. Aggarwal, Prof. Madan Mohan & Ms. Nayantara Sharma, Advocates (M-8373971576)

versus

SHANTI DEVI & ANR ..... Respondents

Through: None.

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Prathiba M. Singh, J.(oral)

1. The present petition is filed challenging the impugned orders dated 15^thJanuary, 2019 and 12^thMarch, 2019. The grievance of the Petitioner/Defendant is that the Plaintiffs/Respondents have been permitted to file the replication vide order dated 15^thJanuary, 2019 and the admission/denial has also been closed on the said date. However, without waiting for the replication to be filed, the Trial Court has gone ahead and settled the issues and also directed affidavits-in-evidence to be filed. Thereafter, on 12^thMarch, 2019, the replication along with certain additional documents has been taken on record and evidence has also not been filed. This, according to the ld. counsel is a procedure unknown to law as the replication has raised several additional and new pleas which are initially not pleaded in the plaint. A large volume of documents has also been filed with

the replication. Since the issues are framed and the case has proceeded for filing of evidence, replication could not have been permitted to be taken on record.

2. The Court has perused the two impugned orders. There is no doubt that if permission is being granted to the Plaintiffs to file replication, the issues ought to be settled only after the replication and any documents which may be filed with the same are considered and taken on record. Framing of issues prior to perusing the replication could lead to an anomalous situation inasmuch as, if the replication which is a pleading, if permitted by the Court, has any new facts/legal issues, the same would not be part of the issues which are framed by the Court and hence the issues which are framed can remain pre-mature and half-baked.

3. In the present case, on 15^thJanuary, 2019, permission to file the replication was granted in the presence of all the counsels. Thereafter, issues have also been framed in the presence of all the counsels. Neither of the parties opposed the procedure adopted by the Trial Court. Thereafter, now the replication has also come on record with additional documents. Considering the overall facts situation, it is directed that:

a) The replication and the documents shall be taken on record but the documents will have to be proved in accordance with law;

b) An opportunity for conducting the admission/denial of the newly filed additional documents along with the replication shall be granted to the Defendant which shall be done by way of a statement of admission/denial as per the CPC;

c) Before filing the statement of admission/denial, if the Defendant wishes to file any sur-replication/sur-rejoinder, permission to do so is

granted. The same shall be filed along with the statement of admission/denial within a period of four weeks from today.

4. In order to avoid unnecessary delays and complexities, by framing issues prior to filing of replication, it is directed that in future, Trial Courts shall ensure that if permission for replication is being granted, issues shall be framed only after the replication is filed.

5. The Trial Court shall now consider after perusing the replication and sur-rejoinder, if any additional issue or amendment of an issue is required. After the issues are finalised, the Plaintiff shall file the evidence as per the schedule set by the Trial Court.

6. With these observations, the petition and all pending applications are disposed of. Copy of this order be circulated to the District Judges by the worthy Registrar General.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH

JUDGE

NOVEMBER 29, 2019

Rahul

CM(M) 1694/2019 & CM Appl. 51335/2019

Krishan Kumar v. Shanti Devi And Another

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner’s Arguments

Respondents’ Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Krishan Kumar v. Shanti Devi And Another

Comments