MR RAJENDER KUMAR SHARMA vs 1. SHREE BHAIRON JI MANDIR SAMITI REGD & ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~59 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 21.11.2025 + CM(M) 2251/2025, CM APPL. 73092/2025, 73094/2025 & 73093/2025 MR RAJENDER KUMAR SHARMA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sachin Chopra and Ms. Astha Gupta, Advocates versus SHREE BHAIRON JI MANDIR SAMITI REGD & ORS. .....Respondents Through: None CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA O R D E R (ORAL) 1. Petitioner has assailed order dated 07.07.2025 of the learned trial court, whereby application under Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC of the present respondent no. 1 (plaintiff of the suit) was allowed and the additional documents enlisted in paragraph 7 of the impugned order were taken on record. 2. Having heard learned counsel for petitioner (the newly impleaded defendant no. 3), I do not find it a fit case to even issue notice. 3. The subject additional documents were taken on record by way of the impugned order, describing the relevance thereof to the dispute as well as the reason explaining the delay in filing those additional documents. CM(M) 2251/2025 Page 1 of 4 pages Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, GIRISH 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec 45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, KATHPALIA postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, Digitally Signed serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15 570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801 e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA By:NEETU N NAIR Date: 2025.11.21 17:20:00 -08'00' Signing Date:21.11.2025 17:25:03 4. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law because the subject additional documents are not relevant for the effective adjudication of the suit, insofar as the same only reflect that the premises and the temple in question were in oc