$~49 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 16.12.2025 + CM(M) 2420/2025, CM APPL. 79102/2025, 79104/2025 & 79103/2025 RANJANA ARORA .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Chetna, Advocate with petitioner in person. versus DEVENDER KUMAR NOW DECEASED THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS AND ORS .....Respondents Through: SI Omkant Yadav, PS Hauz Qazi. CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA O R D E R (ORAL) 1. Petitioner/plaintiff has assailed order dated 13.10.2025 of the learned trial court, whereby her application under Order VII Rule 14 CPC filed at the stage of final arguments was dismissed. Having heard learned counsel for petitioner/plaintiff, I do not find it a fit case to even issue notice. 2. Broadly speaking, at the stage of final arguments in the suit pending since the year 2011, the petitioner/plaintiff filed an application under Order VII Rule 14 CPC seeking to place on record certain additional documents, pleading vaguely in paragraph 3 of the application that the subject additional documents could not be filed earlier as due to inadvertence, the petitioner/plaintiff had misplaced those documents. 3. By way of the impugned order, the learned trial court, after hearing both sides dismissed the said application of the petitioner/plaintiff, observing that the application appeared to have been moved only to delay the disposal of the suit and under the garb of the said application, the petitioner/plaintiff was trying to reopen evidence. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner/plaintiff submits that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is contended that the subject additional documents are vital evidence to prove the case of the petitioner/plaintiff. As regards failure to file the subject additional documents at appropriate stage, it is contended by learned counsel that petitioner/plaintiff is a senior citizen lady. 5. To begin with, admittedly, petitioner/plaintiff is not a lay person. The petitioner/plaintiff is a retired Inspector of Customs and Excise Department. No specific reason has been mentioned in the application or during arguments as to why the subject additional documents were not filed at appropriate stage. A mere submission that the said documents got misplaced and were not traceable cannot be accepted at the fag end of the suit, which, in any case, is pending for more than a decade and a half. The subject additional documents span across the period from 2010 to 2019 and going by the nature of those documents as reflected in the application under Order VII Rule 14 CPC, it does not sound believable that petitioner/plaintiff had no access to those documents. All those documents are of such nature that copies thereof could always be obtained by the petitioner/plaintiff from the concerned government authorities. 6. Further, there is not even a whisper as to when, how and from where the subject documents got traced out. 7. I find substance in the opinion of the learned trial court that petitioner/plaintiff is trying to reopen the entire case at the stage of final arguments. If the petitioner/plaintiff is granted opportunity to file the subject additional documents at this stage, she would have to be granted an opportunity to prove the same in accordance with law and consequently, the other side also shall have to be granted similar opportunity. 8. There is another aspect. It appears that one of the subject additional documents is a sale deed, pertaining to which an application was filed in the year 2015 but that application was dismissed by the trial court and that order having not been challenged has attained finality. 9. In view of the aforesaid, I am unable to find any infirmity, much less perversity in the impugned order that would call for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, so the same is upheld. 10. The petition is totally devoid of merit, so the petition and the accompanying applications are dismissed. GIRISH KATHPALIA (JUDGE) DECEMBER 16, 2025/ry CM(M) 2420/2025 Page 1 of 4 pages