Hima Kohli, J.

1. The present Chamber Appeal has been filed by the defendant No. 1 against the order dated 22.3.2011 passed by the Joint Registrar disposing of IA No. 3213/2011, an application that was filed by the aforesaid defendant, under Order 8 Rule 1A(3.), CPC, for permission to produce additional documents at the stage when evidence was being led by the defendants. The grievance of the defendant No. 1 is that by the aforesaid order, LA. No. 3213/2011 was only partly allowed by the Joint Registrar who had granted permission to the applicant to place on record documents that were mentioned in para 4 and sub-paras (h), (i) and (j) of para 7 of the application, the Board Resolution of the defendant No. 2 company dated 20.9.1999 as mentioned in para 8 of the application and the certified copies of the order dated 16.2.1993 passed by the Gwalior Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, and a copy of the writ petition, registered as WP(C) No. 20897/2005 and filed in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. Learned Counsel for the appellant/defendant No. 1 further states that as a copy of the Prospectus for Public Issue of the defendant No. 2 as mentioned in para 8 of the application, was subsequently permitted to be taken on record during the course of recording the evidence of a witness (DW14), he does not wish to press the present appeal in respect of the said document.

2. As for the remaining documents that were sought to be filed, it is submitted by learned Counsel for the appellant/defendant No. 1 that while passing the impugned order dated 22.3.2011, and only partly allowing the application filed by the defendant No. 1, the Joint Registrar has not offered any explanation for rejecting/disallowing the request of the defendant No. 1 for filing the remaining documents as mentioned in the said application. He states that though an explanation was duly offered by the defendant No. 1 for the belated filing of the said documents, the same was not taken note of by the Joint Registrar while passing the impugned order.

3. Before considering the submissions made by both sides, it is necessary to refer to some material dates. The first date relevant for consideration is 1.6.2001, the date when the accompanying suit for possession was instituted by the plaintiff against the defendants. In the year 2002, the defendants had filed their written statement. Accompanying the said written statement were thirty one documents. Pertinently, none of the documents mentioned in IA No. 3213/2011 formed a part of the list of documents that was filed by the defendants at the relevant time. Issues in the present suit were framed on 16.5.2005. Later on, on the basis of an application that was filed by the defendants, additional issues were framed on 7.9.2005. Thereafter, the plaintiffs evidence stood concluded in the year 2009. Vide order dated 3.6.2010, the defendants were directed to lead their evidence and were called upon to file their affidavits within two weeks. The first affidavit that was filed by the defendants on 13.6.2010, was that of defendant No. 1 (DW-9) and it was running into sixty six pages. It was along with the aforesaid affidavit of DW-9 that the documents mentioned in the present application were filed, but without seeking the leave of the Court.

4. Subsequently, on 14.2.2011, LA. No. 3213/2011 was filed by the defendant No. 1 for seeking permission to place on record, the aforesaid documents. The aforesaid application was considered by the Joint Registrar and was partly allowed by the impugned order dated 22.3.2011. While passing the aforesaid order, the Joint Registrar had categorized the documents into three categories, and had observed that the documents sought to be brought on record by the defendant No. 1 had not seen the light of the day despite several opportunities given to him to produce the documentary evidence. By placing reliance on two judgments of co-ordinate Benches of this Court in the case of Dr. J.K. Jain v. Krishnaram Baldeo Investment & Finance Co. Ltd. : 150 (2008) DLT 115 [LQ/DelHC/2008/2980] =dated 14.8.2008 in CM(M) No. 217/2008 and another judgment in the case of Y.N. Gupta v. Jagdish Chander Sharma & Anr., reported as 2010 (116) DRJ 737 [LQ/DelHC/2005/1680] , the Joint Registrar had opined that no specific explanation had been offered by the defendants for filing the documents at such a belated stage and accordingly, the request made for placing the said documents on record was declined, except for those documents that have been mentioned in para 2 above.

5. The main grievance of the defendant No. 1 is that the explanation as offered in I.A. No. 3213/2011 for non-filing of the documents was not taken into consideration by the Joint Registrar while passing the impugned order and therefore, the present appeal ought to be allowed and all the documents mentioned in the aforesaid application ought to be taken on record. Pertinently, the documents disallowed by the Joint Registrar include the Deed of Declaration of Trust dated 19.9.2005 executed by Lt. Rajmata Vijaya Raje Scindia, extracts from the book, "Princess" authored by Lt. Rajmata Vijaya Raje Scindia and Manohar Moolgaonkar, the Book, "Advertising in Rural India" and excerpts from the issue dated 1.11.2010 of the magazine, "Outlook".

6. The explanation offered by the defendant No. 1 for non-filing of the aforesaid documents at an earlier stage finds mention in para 6 of the application wherein, it has been stated that several of the documents as mentioned in the application were not traceable by defendant No. 1, the same being old documents/ records and having been archived along with numerous other old records in a library that was situated adjacent to the boundary wall of the suit premises under the occupation of the defendants. It was further averred that on 22.11.2009, a speeding truck had rammed into the suit premises and had broken the boundary wall causing damage to the aforesaid library and as the said accident had caused the death of an unknown person, an FIR had also been lodged subsequently. It was only thereafter that the defendant No. 1 claims that he decided to move out of the library so as to safeguard the valuable equipments and documents archived in the library, and in the said process, he came to know about the existence of the documents that find mention in para 8 of the application and that too only in the month of November 2010. The old documents claimed to have been archived have been detailed in para 7 of the application.

7. Pertinently, the truck accident in question had taken place in the month of November 2009, but as per the defendant No. 1, he came to know about the existence of the documents that were proposed to be filed, one year thereafter, in November 2010 and the application in question came to be filed three months thereafter, in February 2011. However, these documents were enclosed by defendant No. 1 with his affidavit that came to be filed on 13.6.2010.

8. The present Chamber Appeal is vehemently opposed by the other side. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the plaintiff submits that the present appeal is nothing but an attempt on the part of the defendant No. 1 to further delay the suit proceedings that have been dragging for the past one decade and most of the delay is attributable to the defendants who have not been co-operating in an expeditious trial of the suit as they are in possession of the suit premises and they want to prolong the litigation. He further states that while considering the present appeal, the submission made by the other side that the documents mentioned in the application are relevant for adjudication of the present suit cannot be the only ground which ought to weigh with the Court and that the Court must satisfy itself that just and sufficient cause has been demonstrated by the defendants for permission to place on record the said documents when the (sic) at an advance stage of trial, which justification has not been offered by the other side. Reliance has been placed on the decisions in the cases of Harkesh Singh & Anr. v. Ved Raj, reported as : 168 (2010) DLT 484 [LQ/DelHC/2009/4459] and in Asia Pacific Breweries v. Superior Industries, reported as : 158 (2009) DLT 670 [LQ/DelHC/2009/3384] , to submit that as most of the documents now sought to be filed were admittedly within the power and possession of the defendant No. 1, he cannot be permitted to file fresh material and documents at an advance stage of the suit under the garb of the present belated application.

9. The Court has considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the present appeal as also the averments made in I.A. No. 3213/2011, in the light of the impugned order. It is trite that documents cannot be permitted to be produced by the parties at any and every stage of the trial and those documents which are not produced at an appropriate stage ought not to be allowed by the Court unless and until just and sufficient cause is shown therefor. In the present case, the application filed by the defendant No. 1 for seeking permission to place on record the additional documents in question, is undoubtedly belated, as the plaintiffs evidence had already been concluded by then and by now, the defendants have also produced fourteen witnesses for deposing, thus leaving only four or five witnesses to be examined.

10. Learned Counsel for the defendants submits that the registered Deed of Trust dated 19.9.2005 signed by late Rajmata Vijaya Raje Scindia had been duly mentioned in the written statement filed by the defendants. The said written statement was filed some time in the year 2002. It is undisputed that a copy of the said Deed of Trust had not been filed by the defendants either at the time of filing the written statement or even later on. As regards the other documents as noticed above, the explanation offered is that the said documents had been archived and came to the notice of the defendant No. 1 only when they were being removed from the library situated in the suit premises and being re-located.

11. It is the defendants own case that most of the documents that have been mentioned in the application in question were within the power and possession of the defendant No. 1. A perusal of LA No. 3213/2011 reveals that the defendant No. 1 has not made any averment with regard to the steps that were taken by him to procure the said documents at the relevant time and place them on record. Since it is the submission of learned Counsel for the defendants that some of the documents, for example the registered Deed of Trust, were mentioned in the written statement, it was all the more incumbent on the defendant No. 1 to have produced the said documents/certified copies thereof at the relevant time. Admittedly, in the present case, admission/denial of documents was concluded as long back as on 17.3.2003. Issues were framed thereafter on 16.5.2005 and additional issues were framed on 7.9.2005. Thus there were ample opportunities available to the defendant No. 1 to have filed the relevant documents either prior to conclusion of admission/denial of documents or after framing of issues on 16.5.2005 or 7.9.2005. Neither of the aforesaid opportunities were availed of by the defendant No. 1 for reasons best known to him.

12. Instead, defendant No. 1 has waited for the plaintiff to conclude its evidence which stood concluded three years ago, in the year 2009 and thereafter, the defendants have proceeded to lead their own evidence by producing fourteen witnesses till now. Defendant No. 1 filed his own affidavit by way of evidence as DW-9, on 13.6.2010 and he has enclosed the documents in question therewith knowing very well that no such prior permission had been taken/granted by the Court for the said purpose. It was only after about three months from the date of filing of the said affidavit, did it dawn on the defendant No. 1 that he was required to approach the Court for taking permission to file the said documents and thus, I.A. No. 3213/2011 came to be filed on 14.2.2011.

13. The justification offered by the defendant No. 1 for not having filed the documents in question on earlier occasions is not found to be satisfactory or justiciable. Simply because it is stated that the documents were archived by the defendant No. 1 in a library situated in the suit premises does not mean that he ought not to have shown due diligence of browsing through his own records for identifying such of the documents that were considered relevant for substantiating his defence in the present case.

14. The defendant No. 1 did not file any of the documents in question along with his written statement. Nor were the said documents included in the list of documents or relied upon in the list of reliance though most of them were in the possession of defendant No. 1. For defendant No. 1 to state at this belated stage that the documents as filed by him along with I.A. No. 3213 / 2011 are necessary for proper adjudication of the controversy involved in the suit or that they are vital and go to the root of the case, cannot be accepted for the reason that much time has lapsed after the defendants filed their written statement in the year 2002. Issues were framed in the year 2005 whereafter, the plaintiff concluded its evidence in the year 2009. Further, the defendant No. 1 has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit and fourteen witnesses have already been produced by them till now. Such of the documents that have not been permitted to be placed on record were well within the power and possession of the defendant No. 1 and most of them were in public domain and could have been very well obtained by him had he shown due diligence at the right time. Despite the same, the Joint Registrar has granted leave to the defendant No. 1 to place on record a large number of the documents as mentioned in para 2 hereinabove, barring only a few, for which permission was declined.

15. In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances, this Court is the opinion that the defendant No. 1 has failed to show any sufficient cause for belated production of the aforesaid documents and there is no satisfactory reason offered as to why he should be granted liberty to place them on record now. A complete lack of diligence has been demonstrated by the defendant No. 1 for seeking permission to produce the documents in question. It cannot be stated that he was earlier unaware of the existence of the said documents or that he could not produce the said documents despite due diligence demonstrated by him. In any case, as noted above, the Joint Registrar has examined the relevancy of the documents in question, categorized them and thereafter, allowed the defendant No. 1 to place on record some of the documents considered necessary while declining him permission to file the remaining documents.

16. This Court does not find any justification for interfering with the impugned order which appears to be just and proper and passed after proper application of mind. There is merit in the submission made by learned Counsel for the plaintiff that his client would be adversely affected if the said documents are permitted to be taken on record after such an inordinate delay. Further, permitting the defendant No. 1 to file the remaining documents at this stage will undoubtedly retard the progress of the case entirely to the detriment of the plaintiff, which is not permissible. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order dated 22.3.2011 passed by the Joint Registrar is upheld and the present appeal is dismissed as being devoid of merits.