Delhi District Court
Bikram Jeet Singh Sodhi vs Sahiba Sodhi on 20 May, 2026
Bikram Jeet Singh Sodhi V. Sahiba Sodhi
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIJAY SHANKAR,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - 04, (WEST DISTRICT)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CA NO.:- 234/2025
CNR NO.:- DLWT01-007236-2025
IN THE MATTER OF :-
Bikram Jeet Singh Sodhi
S/o Sh. Charan Pal Singh Sodhi
R/o 15, Ground Floor,
New Guru Nanak Vihar,
Nilothi Extension, New Delhi-110041 .... Appellant
VERSUS
Sahiba Sodhi
D/o Late Sardar Tejinder Singh Kohli
W/o Bikram Jeet Singh Sodhi
R/o A-104, Phase-I, Vivek Vihar, Delhi .... Respondent
Date of institution of the appeal : 23/07/2025
Date on which judgment was reserved : 08/05/2026
Date of judgment : 20/05/2026 Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2026.05.20
17:47:04
+0530
CA No. 234/2025 Page No.1 of 27
Bikram Jeet Singh Sodhi V. Sahiba Sodhi
JUDGMENT
1. By way of present judgment, this Court shall conscientiously
adjudicate upon appeal under section 29 of the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “DV Act“) filed by the
appellant against the order dated 08/07/2025 (hereinafter referred to as
‘impugned order’) passed by Ms. Helly Fur Kaur, Ld. Judicial Magistrate First
Class, (Mahila Court-05), West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in MC No.
300/2020 titled as “Sahiba Sodhi V. Bikram Jeet Singh Sodhi & Ors.“.
In the present appeal, the appellant has prayed to call the record
of the Ld. Trial Court and to examine the legality of the impugned order and to
set-aside the impugned order passed by Ld. Trial Court and to strike-off the
additional documents and contents of Para No. 43 onwards of the evidence by
way of affidavit filed by the respondent. Appellant has also prayed to stay the
proceedings of the Ld. Trial Court till the final disposal of appeal and to direct
the Ld. Trial Court to adjudicate the matter expeditiously as possible and dispose-
off the matter within a period of one year.
2. Brief facts necessary for just adjudication of the present appeal as
stated in the present appeal are that the appellant has filed the present appeal
against the impugned order dated 08/07/2025 passed by the Ld. Trial Court.
Marriage of the parties was solemnized on 19/02/2012 as per
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2026.05.20
17:47:11 +0530CA No. 234/2025 Page No.2 of 27
Bikram Jeet Singh Sodhi V. Sahiba SodhiSikh rites and ceremonies at Gurudwara Guru Singh Sahab, Keshav Puram,
Delhi and out of the said wedlock, one child namely Saksham Singh Sodhi was
born on 21/01/2013. Vide order dated 08/04/2022, Ld. Trial Court had
adjudicated the interim maintenance and directed the respondent to file evidence
by way of affidavit and on 27/10/2022, counsel for the respondent had filed
evidence by way of affidavit alongwith additional documents. Respondent had
filed additional documents without seeking permission of the Court and
respondent had also exhibited the said documents in her evidence by way of
affidavit. Respondent had also added more submissions in her evidence by way
of affidavit, which were not part of complaint/petition u/s 12 DV Act. Thereafter,
the appellant had filed an application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) read with section
151 CPC with the prayer that the additional documents tendered and exhibited
by the respondent during evidence should not be taken on record at the stage of
evidence without any appropriate application and she should be directed to file
a fresh/amended evidence by way of affidavit. Vide order dated 09/11/2023
passed by the Ld. Trial Court, Ld. Trial Court has allowed the documents filed
by the respondent at the stage of evidence subject to cost of Rs.5000/- to be paid
to the appellant. Thereafter, appellant has challenged the order dated 09/11/2023
vide CA No. 409/2023 and vide order dated 29/03/2025 passed by the Ld.
Appellate Court, matter was remanded back to the Ld. Trial Court with direction
to grant an opportunity to the respondent to file an application for placing
additional documents on record. Thereafter, respondent had filed an application
U/o 7 Rule 14 CPC for bringing on record certain additional documents and vide
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
SHANKAR
VIJAY
Date:
SHANKAR 2026.05.20
17:47:18
+0530CA No. 234/2025 Page No.3 of 27
Bikram Jeet Singh Sodhi V. Sahiba Sodhiimpugned order dated 08/07/2025, Ld. Trial Court had allowed the aforesaid
application of the respondent subject to cost of Rs.7000/- to be paid to the
appellant and also allowed the additional allegations mentioned in the evidence
by way of affidavit from Para No. 43 onwards. Respondent had failed to disclose
reasons for not filing the documents earlier alongwith the complaint/petition.
Contents of para no.43 onwards in the evidence by way of affidavit are fresh
facts/allegations, which were not pleaded earlier. Appellant has not filed any
other similar appeal seeking similar relief either before this Court or before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
3. Appellant has challenged the impugned order on the grounds, as
mentioned in the present appeal.
Grounds of appeal- Impugned order has caused grave miscarriage and failure
of justice to the appellant and the same has caused grave inconvenience and
hardship to the appellant and the injury suffered by the appellant cannot be
compensated in terms of money. Ld. Trial Court has totally failed to consider and
appreciate the material facts that at the stage of complainant evidence, the
complainant cannot file additional documents or incorporate additional
allegations, not already on record in violation of principles of natural justice. Ld.
Trial Court has totally failed to consider and appreciate that the appellant was
not given an opportunity to admit or deny the additional documents placed on
record by the respondent, which were in power and possession of the respondent
earlier as well. Ld. Trial Court has not appreciated that the respondent has failed
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2026.05.20
17:47:24
+0530CA No. 234/2025 Page No.4 of 27
Bikram Jeet Singh Sodhi V. Sahiba Sodhito disclose the reasons for not filing the documents alongwith the petition.
Respondent has provided vague and ambiguous reasons for not filing the
documents earlier. Ld. Trial Court has not appreciated that the contents of para
no.43 onwards in the evidence by way of affidavit of the complainant are fresh
facts/allegations, which were not pleaded earlier by the complainant at the stage
of pleadings. Ld. Trial Court has totally failed to consider that in the application
under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC, there is no mention or prayer in the application
to allow the additional facts/allegations on record, yet the Ld. Trial Court has
allowed the said additional facts/allegations vide impugned order. Respondent
after several years of proceedings has attempted to fill in the gaps and
contradictions present in the original complaint. Such conduct is evidently an
afterthought and an attempt to delay the trial, confuse the proceedings and
unfairly prejudice the right to a fair defence. As per settled principles of law, a
party cannot be permitted to improve its case at a later stage, especially when the
matter has proceeded substantially and is at the stage of evidence. Such conduct
amounts to procedural impropriety and an attempt to unfairly strengthen her case
by introducing new material at a stage when the case should proceed on the basis
of the original record. Ld. Trial Court has failed to consider that in violation of
the principles of natural justice, the appellant herein has not been allowed an
opportunity to admit or deny the additional facts/allegations. Ld. Trial Court has
not exercised its judicial discretion in a judicious, just, proper, fair and equitable
manner and totally failed to consider and appreciate the material facts that the
additional documents filed by the respondent are not relevant for the present case
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2026.05.20
17:47:31 +0530CA No. 234/2025 Page No.5 of 27
Bikram Jeet Singh Sodhi V. Sahiba Sodhiand same were filed only to delay the proceedings of the present case. There
was no justified and lawful grounds and reasonable and probable cause for
allowing the respondent to file additional documents at the stage of evidence
subject to cost. Ld. Trial Court has erred in allowing the respondent to file
additional documents and amend her pleadings at the stage of evidence, causing
serious prejudice to the appellant. Impugned order has caused serious prejudice,
irreparable loss and injury and has caused grave miscarriage and failure of justice
to the appellant.
4. This Court heard the arguments on the present appeal advanced
by Ld. Counsel for the parties. Perused the material available on record.
During the course of arguments, it was submitted by Ld. counsel
for the appellant that impugned order is liable to be set-aside on the grounds, as
mentioned in the present appeal. On the other hand, it was submitted by Ld.
Counsel for the respondent that the Ld. Trial Court has passed the impugned
order in accordance with law and there is no merits in the present appeal and the
same is liable to be dismissed.
Counsel for the appellant in support of his contentions has relied
upon the following case laws:-
(a) Kunapareddy @ Nookala Shanka Balaji V. Kunapareddy Swarna
Kumari & Anr. {(2016) 11 SCC 774}
(b) Polyflor Ltd. V. A.N Goenka & Ors. {2016 SCC OnLine Del 2333}
(c) Srinivas Raghavendrarao Desai (Dead) by LRs V. V. Kumar Vamanrao
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
SHANKAR
VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2026.05.20
17:47:36
+0530CA No. 234/2025 Page No.6 of 27
Bikram Jeet Singh Sodhi V. Sahiba Sodhi@ Alok & Ors. {2024 INSC 165}
(d) K.K. Velusamy V. N. Palanisamy {(2011) 11 SCC 275}
5. By way of present appeal, the appellant has challenged the
order dated 08/07/2025 passed by the Ld. Trial Court. The impugned order is
reproduced as under:-
” 08.07.2025
Present: None for the Petitioner.
Sh. Prateek Jindal, Ld. counsel for
respondent.
Put up for orders at 4:00 PM.
(Helly Fur Kaur)
JMFC (Mahila Court-05), West,
THC, Delhi/08.07.2025
AT 4:00 PM
08.07.2025
Present: None for the Petitioner.
Sh. Prateek Jindal, Ld. counsel for
respondent.
1. Vide this order, I shall decide an application moved by
the petitioner under order 7 Rule 14 of CPC.
2. At the outset, it is to be noted that vide order dated
29.03.2025, Ld. Appellate court had remanded back the matter
to this Court with direction to grant an opportunity to the
petitioner herein, to move an application for placing additional
document on record and respondent herein, to file reply and to
decide the application on merits. Digitally signed
by VIJAY
SHANKAR
VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2026.05.20
17:47:41
+0530
CA No. 234/2025 Page No.7 of 27
Bikram Jeet Singh Sodhi V. Sahiba Sodhi
3. Further, it is pertinent to note that the aforesaid appeal
was filed by respondent herein, against order dated 09.11.2023
passed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court dismissing the
application of respondent moved under order 7 Rule 14 CPC
seeking relief that additional documents tendered by the
petitioner straightaway in the evidence should not be taken on
record.
4. Hence, now this court has fresh application of the
petitioner under Order 7 rule 14 for placing those documents
on record to be decided afresh on merits.
5. It is submitted in the application that following documents
are sought to be brought in the evidence of whose original was
filed alongwith an affidavit of evidence on 27.10.2022.
(a) Original relieving letter from SMC Global Security,
(b) True copy of SMS sent by the complainant on 16.10.2022
from her phone No. 9891868576 to her maternal aunt
(c) Original hand written diary entries written by the
complainant from 2016 to 2020.
d) True copy of photograph clicked by the complainant of the
prescription dated 16.02.2020 alongwith photographs
evidencing assault by the respondent No. 1.
(e) Photographs of the display of complainant mobile phone
showing What’s app message sent by the complainant to her
maternal aunt (mosi) on 16.02.2020.
(f) True copy of message sent by the complainant to Smt.
Suraksha Batra on 7.07.2020. Digitally signed
by VIJAY
SHANKAR
VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2026.05.20
17:47:48
+0530CA No. 234/2025 Page No.8 of 27
Bikram Jeet Singh Sodhi V. Sahiba Sodhi
(g) True copy of message written by the complainant on
10.07.2020 to the respondent No. 1.
(h) True copy of reply sent by respondent No.1 to the
complainant on 11.07.2020.
(i) True copy of the complaint sent over Whats app by the
complainant to the SHO P.S Paschim Vihar, New Delhi from
her mobile No. 9891868576 to the phone No. 7065036130
on 24.08.2020.
(j) True copy of message written by the complainant on
24.08.2020 to the respondent no. 1.
(k) Original complaint dated 17.11.2020 presented to SHO,
P.S Paschim Vihar, New Delhi by the complainant.
(1) True copy of message written by the complainant on
22.07.2020 to the respondent no.1.
(m) True copy of e-mail by which the complainant was
appointed as process associates by Clevora Global
outsourcing Services LLP on 12.04.2020.
(n) True copy of email dated 21.07.2020 terminating
complainant employment by Clevora Global Outsourcing
Services LLP.
(0) Pen drive containing video recorded by the complainant on
her phone 6.05.2020.
(p) Certificate U/S 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act of the
complainant.
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
SHANKAR
VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2026.05.20
17:47:56
+0530
CA No. 234/2025 Page No.9 of 27
Bikram Jeet Singh Sodhi V. Sahiba Sodhi
(q) Any other documents with the leave of the Hon’ble court.
6. It is further submitted that the documents could not be
placed on record even after exercise of due deligence. That
if, the documents have not taken on record, it will cause loss
and injustice to the petitioner and on the other hand if they are
taken on record, no prejudice shall be caused to the respondent
no. 1.
7. The application has been vehemently objected to by the
respondent’s side. All the contents of the application have been
denied. It is submitted that petitioner has failed to disclose
reasons for not filling the documents earlier alongwith the
petition. It is further submitted that the contents of para no. 43
onwards in the affidavit of evidence are fresh facts not pleaded
earlier.
8. Arguments have been heard at length.
9. Record has been perused carefully.
10. Before delving into the merits of the application, it is trite
to say that proceedings under PW DV Act are not strictly
criminal in nature and also that this court can devise its own
procedure to dispose off the application under this Act as per
section 28 of the Act. Hence, there is no legal impediment in
adjudicating application for taking additional documents on
record. However, needless to say, the court has to be mindfull
of various factors like prejudice to the opposite side, relevancy
of the documents, bonafide of the applicant, stage of the
proceedings, reason for not filing earlier etc.
11. Having said that, firstly it may be noted that the documents
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
SHANKAR
VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2026.05.20
17:48:02
+0530
CA No. 234/2025 Page No.10 of 27
Bikram Jeet Singh Sodhi V. Sahiba Sodhi
sought to be brought on record by the petitioner pertain to
her previous employment status, her handwritten diaries,
documents purporting to show alleged assault by respondent
no. 1, complaints made by her to the police, her messages to
her aunt and her correspondence with the respondent no. 1. It
goes without saying that past and present financial status of
the parties to a matrimonial despute wherein maintenance is
claimed is a relevant factor to the considered to arrive at the
just conclusion of the case. Besides, in a proceeding under PW
DV Act any document purporting to prove domestic violence
by the respondent is also a relevant document, provided
supporting pleadings are there forming the basis of such
document. In this context, it may be noted that the petition
avers about different alleged acts of domestic violence of
respondents. Further, Petitioner has categorically levelled
allegations pertaining to the year 2016 and also mentioned
about her correspondence with her aunt in para 26 of her
petition. Accordingly, the copy of correspondence with
respondent no.1 and her aunt cannot be said to be alien to the
avernments in the peititon. Futher, the relevancy and the
significance of the copy of complaints against the respondent
no.1 and the photographs seeking to show assualt which has
already been alleged in the petition cannot be undermined.
As regards employment status of the petitioner and the
documents there upon sought to be filed now, they find their
basis in the income affidavit of the petitioner as well as the
contents of the petition.
12. Accordingly, the documents sought to be brought on the
record by the petitioner seem to be relevant documents. As
regards, the stage of the case and prejudice to the respondent’s
side, cross-examination of the petitioner’s side has not yet
begun and thus the respondent’s side shall get sufficient
opportunity to question the authencity of the documents and
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
SHANKAR
VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2026.05.20
17:48:09
+0530
CA No. 234/2025 Page No.11 of 27
Bikram Jeet Singh Sodhi V. Sahiba Sodhi
cross-examine the petitioner. Even otherwise, the petitioner
will have to prove these documents as per the rules of
evidence.
13. The court finds favor with the argument of respondent’s
side that petitioner could have filed the documents earlier
and no plausible reason has been given for not filing it earlier.
However, in view of this court all the best evidence and the
relevant record if sought to be brought on record should not be
discarded right away merely for this reason as it would help in
arriving at a comprehensive decision. Especially when the trial
is effectively yet to begin. Nevertheless, to balance the scales
of justice and considering that there is substantial delay on part
of the petitioner in bringing the documents on record, cost of
Rs. 7,000/- is imposed upon the petitioner to be paid to the
respondent’s side as a condition precedent for bringing these
documents in evidence.
14. Before concluding, it is indispensible to note that
respondent has also objected to contents contained in para 43
onwards of affidavit of evidence of petitioner alleging that
such contents are new and were not part of the petition. The
court has perused the petition carefully. Though, the
paragraphs and their contents may not be a complete replica of
the petition. However, the contents of the affidavit of the
evidence find basis in the petition in one way or another.
Para 26 of the petition categorically mentions about the
allegations pertaining to year 2016 and the incidents and
facts following thereby, which have been alleged in the
affidavit of evidence in paragraphs 43. Thus on close perusal
of affidavit of the evidence, it cannot be said that the facts
are de-horse the petition.
15. Accordingly, the application of the petitioner is allowed
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2026.05.20
17:48:15 +0530CA No. 234/2025 Page No.12 of 27
Bikram Jeet Singh Sodhi V. Sahiba Sodhisubject to cost of Rs. 7,000/- to be paid to the respondents.
Application disposed off in abovesaid terms.
16. Put up for arguments on application of respondent no. 1 for
refund of excess maintenance amount paid on 12.08.2025.
(Helly Fur Kaur)
JMFC (Mahila Court-05), West
THC, Delhi/ 08.07.2025″
6. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to mention the
proceedings before the Ld. Trial Court.
(a) Complainant/petitioner (respondent herein) had filed the
complaint/ petition u/s. 12 with prayers u/s. 18/19/20/21/22 DV Act against the
respondent no.1 (appellant herein) and other respondents and the aforesaid
complaint/petition u/s. 12 & 18 to 22 DV Act is pending before the Ld. Trial
Court.
In the aforesaid complaint/ petition u/s. 12 & 18 to 22 DV Act of
the complainant/petitioner, it is mentioned that marriage of the
complainant/petitioner Sahiba Sodhi was solemnized with the respondent
Bikram Jeet Singh Sodhi on 19/02/2012 as per Sikh rites and ceremonies in Delhi
and out of the said wedlock, one child namely Saksham Singh was born on
21/01/2013. It is also mentioned that the complainant/petitioner was subjected
to mental as well as physical torture/cruelty and she was harassed and ill treated
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
SHANKAR
VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2026.05.20
17:48:21
+0530
CA No. 234/2025 Page No.13 of 27
Bikram Jeet Singh Sodhi V. Sahiba Sodhi
with cruelty by the respondents. It is also mentioned that since 24/08/2020,
complainant/petitioner are residing separately alongwith her minor son in a
rented premises. It is also mentioned that complainant/petitioner was subjected
to domestic violence by the respondents and she is an aggrieved person as per
DV Act.
(b) Domestic Incident Report was called from the Protection Officer
and same was filed before the Ld. Trial Court.
(c) Respondents have contested the aforesaid complaint/petition of
the complainant/petitioner by filing written statements/reply, wherein they
denied the contents/allegations of the complaint/petition and prayed for
dismissal of the complaint/petition of the complainant/petitioner.
(d) In the said case, affidavits of assets, income and expenditure were
filed by the complainant/petitioner and respondent no.1.
(e) Vide order dated 08/04/2022 passed by Ld. Trial Court,
application u/s. 23 DV Act of the complainant/petitioner was allowed and
respondent no.1 was directed to pay interim maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per
month to the complainant/petitioner and interim maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per
month to the minor child.
(f) On 27/10/2022, evidence by way of affidavit of
complainant/petitioner was filed before the Ld. Trial Court and
complainant/petitioner was examined as CW-1 and her examination-in-chief was
recorded and her cross-examination was deferred at the request of counsel for
the respondents and matter was fixed for cross-examination of CW-1 for
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
SHANKAR
VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2026.05.20
17:48:27
+0530CA No. 234/2025 Page No.14 of 27
Bikram Jeet Singh Sodhi V. Sahiba Sodhi16/02/2023. On 16/02/2023, an application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC was filed
by the respondent no.1 for not reading the documents filed by the complainant/
petitioner on 27/10/2022, as a part of evidence and to direct the complainant to
file amended/fresh evidence by way of affidavit and vide order dated 09/11/2023
passed by the Ld. Trial Court, the aforesaid documents were directed to be taken
on record subject to cost of Rs.5000/- to be paid to the respondents.
Thereafter, the respondent no.1 has challenged the order dated
09/11/2023 passed by the Ld. Trial Court by way of appeal u/s. 29 DV Act and
vide order dated 29/03/2025 passed by the Ld. Appellate Court in CA No.
409/2023, the matter was remanded back to the Ld. Trial Court with direction to
grant an opportunity to the complainant/petitioner to file an application for
placing the additional documents on record as well as to the respondent no.1 to
file reply thereto and to decide the application on merits.
Thereafter, an application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC was filed
by the complainant/petitioner and the same was allowed by the Ld. Trial Court
vide impugned order dated 08/07/2025 subject to cost of Rs.7000/- to be paid to
the respondents.
On 12/02/2026 and 04/04/2026, complainant/petitioner/CW-1
was partly cross-examined by counsel for the respondents and now, the matter is
fixed for further cross-examination of CW-1 for 28/05/2026.
7. Before proceeding further, this Court shall examine the aspect
regarding the nature of proceedings under Section 12 DV Act.
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2026.05.20
17:48:32 +0530
CA No. 234/2025 Page No.15 of 27
Bikram Jeet Singh Sodhi V. Sahiba Sodhi
It was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled
as “Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi V. Vidhi Rawal” {2025 INSC 734} that
notwithstanding the penal provisions in the form of Section 31 and 33, the
proceedings before the Magistrate under DV Act are predominantly of a civil
nature.
Similar proposition was also laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in case titled as “Kunapareddy @ Nookala Shanka Balaji V.
Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari & Anr.” {(2016) 11 SCC 774}.
As per section 28 DV Act, the Court can lay down its own
procedure of disposal of an application u/s. 12 or u/s. 23 (2) DV Act.
8. Vide impugned order dated 08/07/2025 passed by the Ld. Trial
Court, the application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC of the complainant/petitioner
was allowed.
Order 7 Rule 14 CPC is reproduced as under:-
“Order 7 Rule 14: Production of document on which plaintiff
sues or relies.- (1) Where a plaintiff sues upon a document or
relies upon document in his possession or power in support of
his claim, he shall enter such documents in a list, and shall
produce it in Court when the plaint is presented by him and
shall, at the same time deliver the document and a copy thereof,
to be filed with the plaint.
(2) Where any such document is not in the possession or
power of the plaintiff, he shall, wherever possible, state in
whose possession or power it is.
(3) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the
plaintiff when the plaint is presented, or to be entered in the
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2026.05.20
17:48:39 +0530
CA No. 234/2025 Page No.16 of 27
Bikram Jeet Singh Sodhi V. Sahiba Sodhilist to be added or annexed to the plaint but is not produced or
entered accordingly, shall not, without the leave of the Court, be
received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit.
(4) Nothing in this rule shall apply to document produced for
the cross-examination of the plaintiffs witnesses, or handed over
to a witness merely to refresh his memory.”
Law relating to Order 7 Rule 14 CPC has been elaborated by the
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as “Pradeep Bailey V. Gilma Daniel“
{CM(M) 1506/2023, decided on 18/06/2025} and it was held that :-
“9. The Court has considered the rival submissions and has
perused the material on record. As per the CPC (Amendment)
1999, if any document or a copy thereof could not be filed with
the plaint under this Rule, it could not be allowed to be received
in evidence on behalf of the plaintiff at the hearing of the suit.
There was embargo on the power of the court and any such
document could not be received in evidence at a later stage. This
provision was found too harsh and so the provision has been
modified by the CPC (Amendment) Act, 2002 and now such
document may be received in evidence with the leave of the
court, which the court shall grant in genuine cases.
11. A plain reading of Order 7 Rule 14 CPC makes it clear that
plaintiff has to present the relevant documents with the plaint.
Subsequently, such documents cannot be presented without the
leave of the court. The provision thus creates a bar on production
of additional documents if the same have not been mentioned
in the list of documents annexed to the plaint and produced at the
time of filing the same, unless the leave of the court is sought…
13. It is no more res-integra that the rules of procedure are
handmaid of justice and should not come in the way of
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
SHANKAR
VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2026.05.20
17:48:46
+0530
CA No. 234/2025 Page No.17 of 27
Bikram Jeet Singh Sodhi V. Sahiba Sodhi
delivering substantial justice. In the case of Sugandhi (dead) by
Lrs. & Anr. Vs. P. Rajkumar, represented by his power agent
Imam Oli (2020) 10 SCC 706, the Apex Court discussed the
factors which must be considered while granting permission to
produce additional documents under Section 8 Rule 1-A CPC. It
was observed that procedure is handmaid of justice. If the
procedural violation does not cause prejudice to the adversary
party, procedural and technical hurdles should not come in the
way of the courts while doing substantial justice. Thus, the
courts should take a lenient view while deciding an application
under Order 8 Rule 1-A CPC.
14. In Mrs. Nalini Lal Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Others,
TEST.CAS.22/2009, a Coordinate Bench of this Court while
allowing the application under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC, held that
the said provision allows for the submission of additional
documents if the Court grants leave and if such documents are
necessary for resolving the real issues between the parties. It was
again emphasized that procedural rules should not hinder
substantive justice.
15. In the case of Mohanraj Vs. Kewalchand Hastimal Jain &
Ors. AIR 2007 Bom. 69, the Bombay High Court discussed the
object of Order 7 Rule 14 CPC and observed that the provision
is enacted to assist the parties and the courts in the manner of
production of documentary evidence while adjudicating the
disputes, to arrive at an appropriate decision on the matter. In this
regard, the provision is to be construed liberally and a pedantic
approach should not be taken while enforcing the provision of
law. A documentary evidence which is relevant and material for
the just and appropriate decision should be allowed to be
produced and merely because the party failed to enter the same
in the list annexed to the plaint, it should not be ignored unless
the plaintiff can show that there would be real prejudice caused
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2026.05.20
17:48:51 +0530CA No. 234/2025 Page No.18 of 27
Bikram Jeet Singh Sodhi V. Sahiba Sodhiif such permission is granted.
22. The procedural rules under the CPC are intended to ensure
substantive justice and exclusion of the documents in the present
case would amount to elevating procedural technicalities over
substantive justice, thereby, defeating the very purpose of fair
adjudication.”
9. It is the contention of the appellant that the respondent has failed
to disclose the reasons for not filing the aforesaid additional documents
alongwith complaint/petition despite the fact that the documents were in power
and possession of the respondent herein. It is also the contention of the appellant
that the impugned order has caused prejudice to the appellant.
From the plain reading of Order 7 Rule 14 CPC, it is clear that
the plaintiff has to produce/file the relevant document alongwith plaint and
subsequently, such documents shall not be received in evidence without the leave
of the Court.
In the present case, vide impugned order dated 08/07/2025 passed
by the Ld. Trial Court, complainant/petitioner was permitted to file the
documents as mentioned in the application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC. It is
pertinent to mention here that on 27/10/2022, complainant/petitioner/CW-1 was
examined-in-chief and tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex.CW-1/A
and documents Ex.CW-1/1 to Ex.CW-1/22 were exhibited. At the time of
tendering evidence by way of affidavit of the complainant/petitioner/CW-1 and
exhibiting the aforesaid documents, no objection was raised by the
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2026.05.20
17:48:56 +0530CA No. 234/2025 Page No.19 of 27
Bikram Jeet Singh Sodhi V. Sahiba Sodhirespondents/counsel regarding tendering of additional documents and mode of
proof.
In the impugned order, Ld. Trial Court has elaborately dealt with
the aspect of relevancy of the aforesaid additional documents sought to be
brought on record.
10. By way of present appeal, the appellant has challenged the
exhibition of aforesaid additional documents.
Before proceeding further, it is relevant to discuss the law relating
to marking/exhibiting the documents, mode of proof and stage of objections
regarding exhibiting the documents.
It was held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case titled as “Sudhir
Engineering Company Vs. Nitco Roadways Ltd.“, { 1995 RLR 286 } that:-
” The marking of a document as an exhibit, be it in any manner
whatsoever either by use of alphabets or by use of numbers, is
only for the purpose of identification. While reading the record
the parties and the Court should be able to know which was
the document before the witness when it was deposing. Absence
of putting an endorsement for the purpose of identification no
sooner a document is placed before a witness would cause
serious confusion as one would be left simply guessing or
wondering while was the document to which the witness was
referring to which deposing. Endorsement of an exhibit number
on a document has no relation with its proof. Neither the
marking of an exhibit number can be postponed till the
document has been held proved; nor the document can be held
to have been proved merely because it has been marked as an
exhibit.”
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2026.05.20
17:49:04 +0530
CA No. 234/2025 Page No.20 of 27
Bikram Jeet Singh Sodhi V. Sahiba Sodhi
It was held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case titled as “Ramnish
Geer & Anr. Vs. C.B.I. & Anr.”, { CRL MC No. 801/2020 decided on
04/11/2022 } that:-
“Thus, it is a settled law that admission or exhibiting of
documents in evidence and proving the same before the court
are two different processes. Contents of the document cannot be
proved by mere filing the document in a court. Under the law of
evidence, it is necessary that contents of documents are required
to be proved either by primary or by secondary evidence. Mere
marking a document as an ‘exhibit’ will not absolve the duty to
prove the documents in accordance with the provisions of law.”
It was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as
“Lachhmi Narain Singh (D) through LRs & Ors. Vs. Sarjug Singh (D) through
LRs & Ors.”, { AIR 2021 SC 3873 } that:-
“……Objection as to the mode of proof must be taken when
the document is tendered and before it is marked as an exhibit.
It cannot be taken in appeal. Objection as to mode of proof
should be taken before a document is admitted and marked as
exhibit. In present case probate applicant never raised any
objection in regards to mode of proof of cancellation deed
before the Trial Court, as is evident from perusal of records and
this must be held against him..
…In view of the foregoing discussion, it is clear that plea
regarding mode of proof cannot be permitted to be taken at the
appellate stage for the first time, if not raised before the trial
Court at the appropriate stage. This is to avoid prejudice to the
party who produced the certified copy of an original document
without protest by the other side. If such objection was raised
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2026.05.20
17:49:09 +0530CA No. 234/2025 Page No.21 of 27
Bikram Jeet Singh Sodhi V. Sahiba Sodhibefore trial court, then the concerned party could have cured the
mode of proof by summoning the original copy of document.
But such opportunity may not be available or possible at a later
stage. Therefore, allowing such objection to be raised during the
appellate stage would put the party (who placed certified copy
on record instead of original copy) in a jeopardy & would
seriously prejudice interests of that party…”
It was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as
“Bipin Shantilal Panchal Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr.“, { AIR 2001 SC 1158 }
that:-
“……Whenever an objection is raised during evidence taking
stage regarding the admissibility of any material or item of
oral evidence the trial court can make a note of such objection
and mark the objected document tentatively as an exhibit in
the case (or record the objected part of the oral evidence) subject
to such objections to be decided at the last stage in the final
judgment. If the court finds at the final stage that the objection
so raised is sustainable the judge or magistrate can keep such
evidence excluded from consideration. In our view there is no
illegality in adopting such a course. (However, we make it clear
that if the objection relates to deficiency of stamp duty of a
document the court has to decide the objection before
proceeding further. For all other objections the procedure
suggested above can be followed.). The above procedure, if
followed, will have two advantages. First is that the time in the
trial court, during evidence taking stage, would not be wasted
on account of raising such objections and the court can continue
to examine the witnesses. The witnesses need not wait for long
hours, if not days. Second is that the superior court, when the
same objection is re-canvassed and reconsidered in appeal or
revision against the final judgment of the trial court, can
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
SHANKAR
VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2026.05.20
17:49:14
+0530
CA No. 234/2025 Page No.22 of 27
Bikram Jeet Singh Sodhi V. Sahiba Sodhi
determine the correctness of the view taken by the trial court
regarding that objection, without bothering to remit the case to
the trial court again for fresh disposal. We may also point out
that this measure would not cause any prejudice to the parties to
the litigation and would not add to their misery or expenses…”
It was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as “R.V.E.
Venkatachala Gounder V. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple & Anr.”
{Appeal (Civil) 10585/1996 decided on 08/10/2003} and it was held that :-
“…Ordinarily an objection to the admissibility of evidence
should be taken when it is tendered and not subsequently. The
objections as to admissibility of documents in evidence may be
classified into two classes:- (i) an objection that the document
which is sought to be proved is itself inadmissible in evidence;
and (ii) where the objection does not dispute the admissibility of
the document in evidence but is directed towards the mode of
proof alleging the same to be irregular or insufficient. In the first
case, merely because a document has been marked as ‘an
exhibit’, an objection as to its admissibility is not excluded and
is available to be raised even at a later stage or even in appeal or
revision. In the latter case, the objection should be taken before
the evidence is tendered and once the document has been
admitted in evidence and marked as an exhibit, the objection that
it should not have been admitted in evidence or that the mode
adopted for proving the document is irregular cannot be allowed
to be raised at any stage subsequent to the marking of the
document as an exhibit. The later proposition is a rule of fair
play. The crucial test is whether an objection, if taken at the
appropriate point of time, would have enabled the party
tendering the evidence to cure the defect and resort to such mode
of proof as would be regular. The omission to object becomes
fatal because by his failure the party entitled to object allows the
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2026.05.20
17:49:19 +0530CA No. 234/2025 Page No.23 of 27
Bikram Jeet Singh Sodhi V. Sahiba Sodhiparty tendering the evidence to act on an assumption that the
opposite party is not serious about the mode of proof. On the
other hand, a prompt objection does not prejudice the party
tendering the evidence, for two reasons: firstly, it enables the
Court to apply its mind and pronounce its decision on the
question of admissibility then and there; and secondly, in the
event of finding of the Court on the mode of proof sought to be
adopted going against the party tendering the evidence, the
opportunity of seeking indulgence of the Court for permitting a
regular mode or method of proof and thereby removing the
objection raised by the opposite party, is available to the party
leading the evidence. Such practice and procedure is fair to both
the parties. Out of the two types of objections, referred to
hereinabove, in the later case, failure to raise a prompt and
timely objection amounts to waiver of the necessity for insisting
on formal proof of a document, the document itself which is
sought to be proved being admissible in evidence. In the first
case, acquiescence would be no bar to raising the objection in
superior Court…”
It is pertinent to mention here that on 27/10/2022,
complainant/petitioner/CW-1 was examined-in-chief and tendered her evidence
by way of affidavit Ex.CW-1/A and documents Ex.CW-1/1 to Ex.CW-1/22 were
exhibited. At the time of tendering evidence by way of affidavit of the
complainant/petitioner/CW-1 and exhibiting the aforesaid documents, no
objection was raised by the respondents/counsel regarding tendering of
additional documents and mode of proof.
In view of the law laid down in Sudhir Engineering, Ramnish Geer,
Lachhmi Narain Singh, Bipin Shantilal Panchal and R.V.E Venkatachala
Gounder cases (supra), the revisionist cannot be permitted to raise aforesaid
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
SHANKAR
VIJAY Date:
SHANKAR 2026.05.20
17:49:25
+0530
CA No. 234/2025 Page No.24 of 27
Bikram Jeet Singh Sodhi V. Sahiba Sodhi
objections regarding exhibiting the additional documents in the present appeal.
11. It is also the contention of the appellant that from the contents of
para no.43 onwards in the evidence by way of affidavit of the
complainant/petitioner, there are fresh facts/allegations, which were not pleaded
earlier by the complainant/petitioner at the stage of pleading. It is also the
contention of the appellant that in the application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC,
there was no prayer in the application to allow the additional facts/allegations
but the Ld. Trial Court has allowed the additional facts/allegations in the
impugned order. It is also the contention of the appellant that the appellant was
not given opportunity to admit or deny the additional facts/allegations.
The aforesaid contentions of the appellant are not tenable as it is
well settled law that the pleading and evidence by way of affidavit of party may
not be word to word same. There is nothing in the evidence by way of affidavit of
the complainant/petitioner to show that the complainant/petitioner has set up new
case in her evidence by way of affidavit. Hence, evidence by way of affidavit of
the complainant/petitioner cannot said to be beyond pleadings. Even otherwise,
at the time of tendering the evidence by way of affidavit of the
complainant/petitioner and exhibiting the documents, no such objection was
taken/ raised by the respondents/counsel.
In view of the same, the aforesaid contentions of the appellant are
not tenable in this regard.
Digitally
signed by
VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date:
2026.05.20
17:49:29
+0530
CA No. 234/2025 Page No.25 of 27
Bikram Jeet Singh Sodhi V. Sahiba Sodhi
12. On perusal of impugned order, this Court is of the considered
opinion that all the parameters for exercising the power/discretion under Order
7 Rule 14 CPC have been duly exercised by the Ld. Trial Court in the impugned
order. All the points and contentions of both the parties were duly dealt with by
Ld. Trial Court in the impugned order.
It is pertinent to mention here that on 12/02/2026 and 04/04/2026,
complainant/petitioner/CW-1 was partly cross-examined by counsel for the
respondents.
This Court is of the considered opinion that no prejudice has been
caused to the appellant by allowing the application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC
and for taking on record the additional documents of the complainant/petitioner.
Since, the aforesaid additional documents were not filed by the
complainant/petitioner alongwith pleadings, reasonable cost of Rs.7000/- was
imposed upon the complainant/petitioner.
13. It is well settled law that the Appellate Court will usually not
interfere with the exercise of discretion by the Ld. Trial Court and the Appellate
Court will interfere only, if it is found that the discretion has been exercised
arbitrarily, capriciously, perversely or if it is found that the Court has ignored
settled principles of law.
There is nothing on the record to show that the Ld. Trial Court
has exercised its discretion arbitrarily, capriciously and perversely. There is also
nothing on the record to show that the Ld. Trial Court has ignored the settled
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
VIJAY SHANKAR
SHANKAR Date: 2026.05.20
17:49:35 +0530
CA No. 234/2025 Page No.26 of 27
Bikram Jeet Singh Sodhi V. Sahiba Sodhi
principles of law while exercising the power/discretion by allowing the
application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC of the complainant/ petitioner. There is
no illegality, impropriety and infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Ld.
Trial Court.
14. There is no dispute regarding the propositions laid down in the
case laws relied upon by counsel for the appellant, however, the same are not
applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case and same are no help
of the appellant.
15. Applying priori and posteriori reasonings and the aforesaid case
laws referred by this Court, this Court is held that there is no illegality,
impropriety and infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Ld. Trial Court.
Accordingly, the present appeal u/s. 29 DV Act of the appellant is dismissed. No
order as to costs. Nothing stated herein shall tantamount to be an expression of
opinion on the merits of the case.
Trial Court Record be sent back alongwith the copy of this
judgment. Appeal file be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by VIJAY VIJAY SHANKAR Announced in the open Court SHANKAR Date: 2026.05.20 on 20/05/2026 17:49:43 +0530 (VIJAY SHANKAR) ASJ-04 (West) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi CA No. 234/2025 Page No.27 of 27
