AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Case taken up. Learned Counsel for both side are present.
These two Petitions dated i.e BP No. 211 of 2020 and BP No. 214 of 2020 are being jointly proceeded, and these two Miscellaneous Applications i.e. MA No. 158 of 2023 in BP No. 211 of 2020 and Miscellaneous Application No. 159 of 2023 in BP No. 214 of 2020, have been filed by Petitioner under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) of CPC, read with Section 151, for permission for filing additional documents, annexed with these applications.
Learned Counsel for Petitioner argued that number of Set Top Boxes (STBs) along with accessories to it were specifically mentioned in Petition. Those were delivered to Respondent for installing over the premises of subscribers. The dispute is with regard to those Set top Boxes or prices of those Set Top Boxes along with accessories and these invoices, having the mention of those Set Top Boxes along with accessories, and delivery of same to Respondent were annexed with Petition. But few of them were not annexed and are proposed to be brought on record.
Though Code of Civil Procedure is not applicable in strict way in disposal of Petitions before this Tribunal, as has been given in TRAI Act, as well as the procedure before this Tribunal. But the provision of Order 7 Rule 14 (3) provides for filing additional documents in adjudication of original suits before Civil Courts. Hence, these applications have been filed under above provision. More so, Rule of Procedure is handmaid of justice, although there is delay but because of this delay, the substantial justice is not being denied. Hence, the simple request is for admitting those documents.
Learned Counsel for Respondent has vehemently opposed with this contention that Petitioner ought to file these documents along with Petition at the time filing of it, or at the time of settling issues or prior to filing of evidences. But this application has been filed at this delayed stage of final arguments. Hence, chance of rebuttal is not there. This delay and lapses are not to be permitted for making use of them by Petitioner itself. Hence, these applications be rejected.
Having heard and gone through material placed on record, it is apparent that the very dispute, to be adjudged, in these Petitions, by this Tribunal, is with regard to dues to be awarded, as against subscription fee, as well as number of Set Top Boxes along with viewing cards and accessories, said to be delivered to Respondent, for installing over the premises of subscribers. The invoices, with specification of Set Top Boxes, and accessories, though being filed, at delayed stage, will be helpful in above adjudication. Hence, those documents are necessary for judicious disposal of these Petitions. But this delay in filing is to be compensated by way of a cost.
Accordingly, both of these Miscellaneous Applications are being allowed subject to payment of cost of Rupees One Thousand only (Rs. 1000/-) for each Miscellaneous Application, in those two Petitions. Subject to further condition that Counsel for Respondent will have an opportunity for filing of documents in rebuttal of those invoices, if he desires so. Accordingly, both of these Miscellaneous Applications are being allowed, subject to those conditions. The rebuttal may be filed within three weeks.
List the matter on 02.02.2024 ‘for final arguments’.