IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.347 of 2010 Date of decision: 15.3.2011 Sanjay Goel & anr. …. Petitioners Versus Alka Goel & ors. ….. Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting? No For the petitioners: Mr.Suneet Goel, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.Ajay Kumar Dhiman, Advocate. _____________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 16.8.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.1, Paonta Sahib whereby he allowed the application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of the CPC filed by the plaintiff-respondent No.1. 2. It would be pertinent to mention that the plaintiff filed a suit for rendition of accounts in respect 2 of the firm M/s.Aggarwal Foods Products in which she and defendants No.2 and 3 are partners. Defendant No.1 who is the husband of defendant No.2 was given general power of attorney to run the business of this firm. 3. A perusal of the record shows that after written statement was filed and issues were to be framed, the plaint was amended in the year 2007. Thereafter, the plaintiff again filed another application for amendment of the suit after taking four adjournments and the matter remained pending for consideration of this application from the year 2007 to 2009 when the application was allowed. Thereafter, written statement was filed and issues were framed on 4.11.2009. The matter was listed for evidence of the plaintiff on 21.1.2010 when an application under Order 7 Rule 14(3), CPC for placing on record some documents was filed by the plaintiff. This application was allowed by the learned Trial Court vide impugned order. Hence the present petition. 4. The main contention raised by Sh.Suneet Goel, learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants is that these documents were in the possession of the plaintiff 3 much prior to the filing of the amended plaint and, therefore, she should not have been given an opportunity to place these documents on record. 5. I have gone through the documents myself and it cannot be said that these documents are not germane or relevant for deciding the matter. This Court cannot loose sight of the fact that for almost three years, the suit remained pending because of the applications filed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has not led evidence and it is the plaintiff who time and again has got the suit delayed by filing various applications. Two applications for amendment of the plaint and one for bringing on record the documents were filed. Probably heavier costs should have been awarded while allowing the application but it cannot be said that the application itself was not maintainable or that these documents were not relevant. Therefore, though I confirm the order of the learned Trial Court, it is done with the modification that the plaintiff shall pay costs of Rs.2500/- instead of Rs.100/- to the defendants for allowing the application at the belated stage. It is also made clear that in case the plaintiff delays the matter any further then 4 the learned Trial Court may consider vacating the stay order passed in favour of the defendants. 6. Sh.Suneet Goel, Advocate also submitted that some of the documents are not relevant since the partnership came into existence only in the year 1995 and the accounts have been filed in the year 2008 onwards. In fact, these are combined accounts statements from the year 1980 to 2008. The learned Trial Court while admitting the documents shall obviously take into consideration only those documents/portion of those documents which are relevant to decide the plaint. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on 18.4.2011. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. March 15, 2011 ( Deepak Gupta ) (m) Judge