MUKUL MUDGAL, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an application on behalf of the defendants under Order XIII Rule2cpc. The present application seeks to produce the original lease deed dated 26. 8. 1963with the annexed plan which lease deed is said to be executed between M/s Urbanimprovement Co. Pvt. Ltd. and the defendants. This application further pleads thatthe original lease deed was already filled by the plaintiff and was admitted by thedefendants and marked as Ex. P-7 and the plaintiff had failed to file a completedocument as the copy of the site plan annexed with the lease deed was not filed. It ispleaded that these documents were not filed earlier as the plan was mixed up with theold records since the office of the defendants Corporation shifted from one place toanother several times. It is also stated that the said documents was traced out onlyrecently. ( 2 ) THE above application has been opposed on behalf of the plaintiff as an abuseof the process of law. It has been pleaded that the controversy between the parties inthe suit is that the suit property when let out to the defendants was a plot of land or hadconstruction thereon. It is stated that even the lease deed has described the propertyas a plot of land. The plaintiff has submitted that by Notice dated 11. 9. 1995 underorder XII Rule 8 CPC, the counsel for the plaintiff called upon the defendants toproduce the documents sought to be produced with this application alongwith otherdocuments. In spite of service of notice, the defendants haq not produced the saiddocuments and delibeately withheld them. Consequently 1a. 1131 1/95 was filed bythe plaintiff seeking directions to the defendants to discover on oath the documentsmentioned in the said application which included the original Agreement dated1. 2. 1961 and original Lease Deed dated 26. 8. 1963. On 16. 11. 1998 when the saidapplication came up for hearing a statement was made on behalf of the defendantsthat the copies of the documents i. e. , original lease agreement dated 1. 2. 1961 andoriginal lease deed dated 26. 8. 1963 already on record were duly admitted. This wasclearly recorded in the Order dated 16. 11. 8. 1963. On 16. 11. 1998 when the saidapplication came up for hearing a statement was made on behalf of the defendantsthat the copies of the documents i. e. , original lease agreement dated 1. 2. 1961 andoriginal lease deed dated 26. 8. 1963 already on record were duly admitted. This wasclearly recorded in the Order dated 16. 11. 1998 to the following effect: "while copies of the documents of defendants at item No. 1 and 2 have alreadybeen filed by the plaintiff and admitted by the defendant, the defendant hadin his reply stated that the documents mentioned at Item No. 3 and 4 inparagraph No. 4 of the application are not in his power and possession. In myview let the defendant discover on oath by means of affidavit the documentsmentioned at SI. No. 3 and 4 and in case the same are in possession and powerof defendant the same be filed in Court before the next date of hearing. " ( 3 ) THE other two documents were directed to be discovered on oath by thedefendants. The plaintiff further submitted that he has already led the evidence of 5witnesses including the Junior Engineer of MCD and the Managing Director of theurban Improvement Company. It is also stated that the witnesses on behalf of theplaintiff have already deposed that there was no building on the plot of land leasedout to the defendants. The plaintiff closed its evidence on 6. 7. 99 and on that day nowitness of the defendants was present. Accordingly, the case was adjourned to4. 8. 99 for defendants evidence and as even on that date no one was present onbehalf of the defendants, the case was adjourned to 1. 9. 99. On 1. 9. 99 again thematter was adjourned at the behest of the defendants to 1. 10. 99 granting a lastopportunity to the defendants. On 1. 10. 99 again no witness was present on behalf ofthe defendants and another final opportunity was given to produce the witness on3. 11. 99 subject to payment of Rs. 1,000. 00 as costs. Even on 3. 11. 1999 no witness ofthe defendants was present and another last and final opportunity was given to thedefendants to produce the witnesses on 1. 12. 1999 and on that day instead ofproducing witnesses the present application was moved. 11. 99 subject to payment of Rs. 1,000. 00 as costs. Even on 3. 11. 1999 no witness ofthe defendants was present and another last and final opportunity was given to thedefendants to produce the witnesses on 1. 12. 1999 and on that day instead ofproducing witnesses the present application was moved. The plaintiff has furthersubmitted that the document sought to be produced by the present application wasalways in the knowledge of the defendants and has been deliberately withheld todelay the proceedings in the case which have been pending in this Court since theyear 1987. It has also been submitted on behalf of the plaintiff that the pleadings in thepresent application and in particular Para No. 4 are vague and evasive and do notdemonstrate bonafides on behalf of the defendants. ( 4 ) THE Para 4 of the present application under consideration reads as follows: "it is submitted that the Lease Deed dated 26. 8. 63 and plan annexed to thelease Deed were mixed up with hold records since the office of the defendantscorporation shifted from one place to another several time. Due to the saidreason the said documents could not be filed earlier. However, the saiddocument has been traced only recently. " ( 5 ) THE averments in Paragraph 4 are vague and devoid of details. General andnon-specific phrases such as several time and traced only recently do not give anydetail as to the date on which the document in question was traced and how manytimes the office of the defendant shifted. The defendant have relied upon a judgmentreported in Maj. Gen. A. K. Luthra Vs. Malkit Mamrath 1993 (26) DRJ which holdsthat all rules of procedure have been made to serve the interest of justice and in thedispensation of justice, it is imminently desirable that courts must keep doors openand permit light coming from any quarter at any stage, so as long as no prejudice orinjustice is caused to the other side. This judgment does not apply to the facts of thepresent case. A clear finding has been arrived at earlier that prejudice has beencaused to the plaintiff by the delay in the disposal of the present suit and allowing ofthis application would not be in the interest of justice. Accordingly, the ratio of theabovejudgment does not apply. This judgment does not apply to the facts of thepresent case. A clear finding has been arrived at earlier that prejudice has beencaused to the plaintiff by the delay in the disposal of the present suit and allowing ofthis application would not be in the interest of justice. Accordingly, the ratio of theabovejudgment does not apply. ( 6 ) FURTHERMORE, the defendants conduct in these proceedings enumerated in theearlier part of this judgment clearly demonstrates that the defendants have delayedthe proceedings pending in this Court repeatedly in a matter which demonstrates astudied indifference to a prompt disposal of this suit of the 1987 vintage. Consideringthe fact that the delay in the disposal of the suit does not hurt the defendants, thisapplication cannot be considered bona fide. Therefore, I am satisfied that there is nomerit in this application and in view of the vague averments in the application and therecalcitrant conduct of the defendants as enumerated above, the application isdismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 5,000. 00.