SATYAJEET SAMANTA & ANR. vs SHRADDHA NANDA & ANR.

Judgment text excerpt

$~57 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 05th May, 2025 + CM(M) 819/2025 & CM APPL. 26744-26745/2025 SATYAJEET SAMANTA & ANR. .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Adv. versus SHRADDHA NANDA & ANR. .....Respondent Through: Appearance not given CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) 1. Petitioners are defending a suit for specific performance, recovery of damages, injunction and possession. 2. The suit in question was filed before this Court on its original side. However, with the change in pecuniary jurisdiction, it got transferred to District Courts. 3. Such said suit is already at the stage of defendants’ evidence. 4. It was at that stage of the suit that the defendants moved three different applications. He sought amendment in his written statement and also sought permission to place on record certain additional documents. He also made a request to the Court to direct the plaintiff to produce the originals of such documents, claiming that these were essential for proper adjudication of the suit. 5. A bare perusal of the impugned order and the applications moved by the defendants before the learned Trial Court would indicate that all the applications are interconnected and interwoven. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 819/2025 1 By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:06.05.2025 14:37:50 6. The defendants want to place on record one Agreement to Sell dated 28.04.2012, and other property documents dated 27.07.2012. Their case is that these documents would indicate the falsity in the suit filed by the plaintiff. They also, consequently, seek direction from the learned Trial Court to ask the plaintiff to place on record these documents. 7. The learned Trial Court, categorically, noted that the documents which the d