TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (3) TMI 1841
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the plaintiff was a coparcener? OPP (ii) Whether HUF of late Shori Lal existed and came to an end in 1966-67 by partition? OPP (iii) Whether business in the name of Punjab Glass & Plywood Co. was HUF business of defendant No. 1? (iv) Whether the property No. 1050, Patel Gali No. 1 and 2, Gandhi Nagar is an HUF property? OPP (v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any share in the suit property, if so, what share? OPP (vi) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of partition of property by metes and bounds or by any other method? OPP (vii) Whether the suit has been filed within the period of limitation in view of the pleadings of the plaintiff? OPP (viii) Whether the suit has been properly valued for purpose of Court fees and jurisdiction and whether the appropriate Court fees has been affixed? OPP (ix) Whether the suit is not maintainable for want of Court fees? OPP (x) Relief. 4. It is stated that in the year 2008, the plaintiff had filed an application seeking amendment of the plaint which was allowed and thereafter the written statement to the amended plaint was filed by the defendants an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r was also having a platform on tehbazari from the government and the HUF M/s Shori Lal Bhola Nath used to pay tehbazari fee for the same. The receipts bearing No. 489100, 145008, 323097, 153016, 471080, 536100, 125027, 963054, 153015, 137007, 64063, 968005, 241007, 241006, 845073, 569011, 194001, 771078 and 685031 issued by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi may be exhibited as Exhibit PW-1/5 and PW 1/23 respectively. My grandfather in the name of the HUF was carrying on business and was dealing with various persons and entities. Bill dated 17.2.1967 issued in favour of M/s Shori Lal Bhola Nath by M/s Jai Industries may be exhibited as Exhibited PW 1/24. Bill, dated 01.1.1963 issued in favour of M/s Shori Lal Bhola Nath by the Lyallpur Hardware & Tin Mfg. Co. may be exhibited as Exhibit PW-1/25. Bill dated 24.4.1964 issued in favour of M/s Shori Lal Bhola Nath by M/s Satya Narain Vijay Kumar be exhibited as exhibit PW-1/26. In para 11. Copy of the Assessment orders dated 31.7.1970 for the assessment years 1964-1965, 1966-1967 and 1967-1968 may be exhibited as Exhibit PW-1/27, PW-1/28 and PW-1/29 respectively. In para 12. I along with the defendants thereafter car....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... para 44. I state that I have come to know that my father has recently paid a sum of Rs. 12 lakhs only by bank draft to my brother Shri Surinder Kumar towards his share in the HUF properties. I have also come to know that a substantial amount has also been paid in cash to him towards his share in the HUF properties. 5. It has also been contended in the application that the plaintiff filed certain documents along with the affidavit, which were neither relied upon by the plaintiff nor has any permission been sought by him from the Court for placing the said documents on record. 6. It is stated that prior to the amendment of the CPC on 01.7.2002, Order 13 Rule 2 CPC was in existence. It permitted the Court to grant permission to a party to take documents on record on being shown 'sufficient cause' and since this provision has been deleted, no additional document could be taken on record. Thus, in a nutshell, the prayer of the defendants in the application is twofold; firstly, for expunging the contents/averments/paras in the affidavit as stated hereinabove, which are stated to be beyond pleadings and; secondly, seeking a direction that additional documents filed by the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... been admitted and if he cross examines the witness on those aspects then that can be read in evidence as it will be assumed that the defendants/applicants has given up his objection to such averments. 11. The second point which has been urged by the learned senior counsel for the defendants is that the documents which had been attached by the plaintiff along with his affidavit had not been filed earlier and were not even relied upon and therefore, by permitting to take the said documents on record at this belated stage without the permission of the Court and for which no provision exists in the CPC, would result in a serious prejudice to the defendants/applicants. 12. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has contested both these submissions of the learned senior counsel for the defendants. 13. So far as the question of averments made in the affidavit are concerned, it has been contended by the learned counsel that the question of relevancy and admissibility of documents as well as of a fact is to be determined by the learned Local Commissioner who is an experienced retired District Judge and therefore, competent to deal with the objection of the defendants. It is further....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of his own knowledge to prove, except on interlocutory applications, on which statements of his belief may be admitted; provided that the grounds thereof are stated. 18. A perusal of the aforesaid Rule (4) of Order 18 shows that the purpose of conducting the examination in chief by way of affidavit is to cut short the delay in the recording of the evidence of the parties, as deciding the objection at that stage only causes delay in the disposal of the suit itself. 19. It may be pertinent here to refer to the portion which has been highlighted in the aforesaid Rule which clearly mandates that if a party has any objection then such an objection can be got recorded before the Local Commissioner and the question can be decided ultimately by the Court at the stage of final argument. The whole purpose and the scheme of the aforesaid order is to ensure that there is minimum loss of time in recording the evidence of the parties as it cause incalculable delay in the disposal of the suit. 20. In the instant case also, I feel that since the learned Local Commissioner who had been appointed was an experienced and seasoned Retired Additional District Judge and if at all there was any a....