ARVIND AGGARWAL vs BABU RAM GUPTA

Judgment text excerpt

$~53 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 11th August, 2025 + CM(M) 653/2025 & CM APPL. 20657/2025 ARVIND AGGARWAL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rahul Shukla and Mr. Manish Sharma, Advocates. versus BABU LAL GUPTA .....Respondent Through: Present in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) 1. Petitioner is defending a civil suit and is aggrieved by order dated 22.01.2025 whereby the two applications filed by the plaintiff have been allowed. 2. The first application moved by the plaintiff is under Order VII Rule 14 CPC and after hearing arguments for some time, learned counsel for petitioner does not press the present petition in context of abovesaid application. He, however, submits that if it be clarified that mere permission to place on record would not tantamount to hold that the document is also proved in accordance with law. 3. Needless to say, the learned Trial Court has, merely, allowed the application moved under Order VII Rule 14 CPC read with Section 151 CPC filed by the plaintiff and the documents permitted to be placed on record are still required to be proved in accordance with law and in the aspect related to its exhibition and admissibly in law are still very much open. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 653/2025 1 By:DINESH CHANDRA Signing Date:12.08.2025 18:44:40 4. As regard the other application which the plaintiff had moved under Order XI Rule 14 CPC read with Section 151 CPC, the learned counsel for petitioner, after hearing some argument, does not press the order passed there under either. He, however, submits that while he would also place on record the documents in terms of the abovesaid order, the plaintiff may also be directed to place on record the documents which contain admitted