HARPREET KAUR vs RAJINDER PAL SINGH GROVER

Judgment text excerpt

$~106 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 04th August, 2025 + CM(M) 1442/2025 & CM APPL. 47425/2025 HARPREET KAUR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Saeed Ahmad Khan, Advocate versus RAJINDER PAL SINGH GROVER .....Respondent Through: Mr. Ashok Popli, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) 1. Petitioner is defendant no. 2 before the learned Trial Court and is aggrieved by order dated 05.07.2025 whereby the learned Trial Court has declined to give her opportunity to make reference to documents vide which she had purchased the property in question from defendant no. 1. 2. These documents are, admittedly, already on record and due to some oversight, when the affidavit was tendered by defendant no. 2 in her examination-in-chief, she did not make any reference to those documents. 3. It was in the aforesaid backdrop that she moved an application under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC stating therein that these title documents were very much essential to decide the controversy in question and accordingly sought permission to lead evidence to the aforesaid effect and to exhibit such documents which were already on record. 4. Learned Trial Court has declined the aforesaid request, primarily, considering the fact that the dispute in question was not the sale transaction entered between defendant no. 1 on one side and defendant nos. 2 & 3 on the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 1442/2025 1 By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:04.08.2025 19:08:53 other but the question was whether the defendant no. 1 had ownership over the suit property or not. 5. Evidently, to that extent, there cannot be any illegality in the impugned order but fact remains that since on the basis of the application moved under Order I Rule 10 CPC, the subsequent p