Case Title: Pradeep Bailey Vs Gilma Daniel
Case Number: CM(M) 1506/2023 & CM Appl. 47944/2023
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:—
Date of Decision: 18th June, 2025 (Reserved on 4th February, 2025)
Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Hon’ble Judge: Justice Ravinder Dudeja
---
Factual Background
The dispute between the petitioner, Mr. Pradeep Bailey, and the respondent, Ms. Gilma Daniel, arose from a long-standing family property conflict concerning ownership and possession of a shop measuring 8’x10’ located at property No. WZ-5A/31, Vishnu Garden, New Delhi. The petitioner, Mr. Bailey, claimed to be the rightful owner of the property by virtue of documents executed by his late mother in 2003, while the respondent, his sister, asserted ownership on the basis of a prior Will dated 17th November, 1994.
In 2021, Mr. Bailey filed a civil suit for recovery of possession, eviction, mesne profits, and injunction against the respondent, alleging that she had been permitted to reside in the property as a licensee but had later refused to vacate. The respondent, on the other hand, claimed that she was the true owner of the property under her mother’s 1994 Will, under which the mother had disinherited the petitioner due to his alleged misconduct and lack of filial care.
The dispute soon extended beyond mere ownership claims. Mr. Bailey, during the pendency of the trial, sought to introduce additional documents which, according to him, were vital to prove his ownership, occupation, and contribution to the family, including two subsequent Wills of 2000, house tax receipts, bills, professional certificates, and membership records.
---
Procedural Background
The civil suit was registered as Civil DJ No. 934/2021 before the District Judge, where the respondent filed her written statement in March 2022. Subsequently, Mr. Bailey filed a replication along with an application under Order VII Rule 14 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), seeking permission to place additional documents on record.
The trial court, however, dismissed this application on 17th May, 2023. The trial judge held that the petitioner had failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for not filing the documents with the plaint or at least mentioning them earlier in the replication. The judge also observed that the receipts and property tax documents appeared to have interpolations, such as the petitioner’s name being added in a different handwriting, and that some of the documents, like electricity and water bills, had no direct relevance to the main issues.
Aggrieved by this order, Mr. Bailey approached the Delhi High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, contending that the trial court’s refusal was arbitrary and unjust, particularly when the case was still at the evidence stage and no prejudice would be caused to the respondent by admitting the documents.
---
Core Legal Dispute
The essential legal question before the High Court was whether the trial court had erred in refusing to permit the petitioner to file additional documents under Order VII Rule 14 CPC, despite his claim that those documents were necessary for just adjudication and were not in his possession when the plaint was filed.
This dispute brought into focus the balance between procedural compliance and substantive justice — whether technical delay in filing documents should defeat a party’s right to produce crucial evidence for determining the truth.
---
Arguments on Behalf of the Petitioner
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the documents sought to be placed on record were highly relevant for proving his ownership and rebutting the respondent’s claims. These documents included Wills dated 19.09.2000 and 24.08.2000, house tax receipts, tent house business vouchers, electricity and water bills, membership of a traders’ association, and payment slips of burial expenses of the mother.
The petitioner contended that the documents could not be filed earlier because his previous counsel had failed to include them and some were later discovered when handed over by his sister-in-law in 2022. He maintained that since the case had not yet proceeded to evidence, allowing such documents would not prejudice the respondent. Reliance was placed on Kapil Kumar Sharma v. Lalit Kumar Sharma (Civil Appeal No. 2330/2009) and Nishant Hannan & Ors. v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation (CM(M) 262/2014), where courts permitted additional documents at later stages in the interest of justice.
---
Arguments on Behalf of the Respondent
The respondent’s counsel, Mr. Arvind Bhatt, opposed the petition, contending that the petitioner was attempting to fill lacunae in his case. He argued that the petitioner had already filed replication with new documents and was now attempting to introduce even more without justification. The delay of over two years was deliberate and not supported by a credible explanation.
According to the respondent, their late mother had, by a Will dated 17th November 1994, bequeathed the suit property solely to her daughter (the respondent) and had expressly disinherited the petitioner for his neglectful and abusive behavior. The respondent further contended that the petitioner’s conduct had forced their parents to publicly debar him through an affidavit and newspaper publication.
The respondent relied on several precedents including Asia Pacific Breweries v. Superior Industries (2009) 158 DLT 670, Gold Rock World Trade Ltd. v. Veejay Lakshmi Engineering Works Ltd. (2007) 143 DLT 113, and Haldiram (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Haldiram Bhujiawala (2009) 5 ILR (Del) 503, all of which emphasize that courts must exercise discretion in allowing late filing of documents strictly and sparingly, to prevent misuse and delay.
---
Legal Analysis and Judicial Reasoning
Justice Ravinder Dudeja began by analyzing the intent and scope of Order VII Rule 14 of the CPC, which mandates that all documents relied upon by the plaintiff should ordinarily be filed with the plaint. However, sub-rule (3) provides that a document not produced at that stage may later be received in evidence with the leave of the court. The judge observed that the 2002 amendment to this rule was enacted precisely to soften the earlier rigid embargo on filing documents belatedly, thereby allowing genuine parties an opportunity to present relevant materials if justice so requires.
The Court referred to the Delhi High Court’s own ruling in Haldiram (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Haldiram Bhujiawala (2009 5 ILR (Del) 503), which clarified that this is a discretionary power to be used sparingly, only in genuine cases and not as a matter of routine.
The Court also cited the Supreme Court’s judgment in Sugandhi (Dead) by LRs v. P. Rajkumar (2020) 10 SCC 706, where it was held that procedural rules should not act as stumbling blocks in the path of substantive justice. The Apex Court had emphasized that the objective of such provisions is to aid in discovering the truth rather than penalizing inadvertent procedural lapses. Similarly, reference was made to Mohanraj v. Kewalchand Hastimal Jain (AIR 2007 Bom 69), which held that courts should take a liberal approach in allowing relevant documents necessary for a fair decision.
Justice Dudeja then examined the facts of the present case. The petitioner’s additional documents, the Court noted, were directly relevant to his claim that he was employed, financially independent, and had been taking care of his mother, contrary to the respondent’s allegations of negligence. Moreover, some of the documents, such as property tax receipts and municipal payment slips, were public records whose authenticity could be verified at a later stage through evidence.
The judge found that the trial court had taken an overly rigid and mechanical approach in rejecting the documents solely on procedural grounds. He reasoned that since the trial was still at the initial stage and evidence had not commenced, allowing the petitioner to file these documents would not cause any serious prejudice to the respondent. Rather, it would enable the court to effectively adjudicate the real issues between the parties.
The High Court also observed that even if the petitioner’s explanation about his previous counsel’s negligence appeared weak, courts should adopt a pragmatic and compassionate view. Minor mistakes or lapses by litigants or their counsel should not deprive them of a fair chance to present their case, especially when no substantial delay or prejudice is caused to the opposite side.
---
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the trial court’s order dated 17th May 2023. It permitted Mr. Bailey to place the additional documents on record and prove them in accordance with law. Justice Dudeja emphasized that “procedural rules are meant to advance the cause of justice, not to obstruct it.” Excluding potentially relevant documents at this stage, he said, would elevate technical formalities over the pursuit of truth.
The Court concluded that the trial court’s order suffered from “gross illegality and perversity,” as it failed to consider the importance of the documents for the fair adjudication of the matter. The petition was therefore allowed, with both parties directed to bear their own costs.
---
Legal Principle and Impact
This judgment reaffirms the settled principle that procedural law is a means to achieve justice, not an end in itself. The decision underscores the judiciary’s discretion under Order VII Rule 14 CPC to allow late filing of documents if it serves the interests of justice and does not prejudice the other party. It also serves as a guiding precedent for lower courts to adopt a balanced approach, avoiding undue rigidity in procedural compliance.
By blending procedural discipline with fairness, the Delhi High Court once again reinforced that the object of the judicial process is truth-seeking, not technical exclusion.
---
Suggested Titles for Publication
1. Procedure as a Handmaid of Justice: Delhi High Court’s Liberal Interpretation of Order VII Rule 14 CPC
2. Balancing Technicalities and Truth: Lessons from Pradeep Bailey v. Gilma Daniel
3. When Procedural Rigidity Yields to Substantive Justice: A Study on Additional Documents under CPC
4. Order VII Rule 14 CPC and the Right to Fair Adjudication: Revisiting Judicial Discretion
5. Documents, Delay, and Justice: How the Delhi High Court Restored Fair Play in Litigation
---
Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
