JUDGMENT : M.M. Sundresh, J. (Prayer: Appeal preferred under Clause 15 of Letters Patent r/w Order XXXVI Rule 9 of O.S. Rules against the order dated 20.11.2019 made in A.No.8879 of 2019 in C.S. (Comm.Divn.) No.621 of 2016.) Prayer in C.S.: to pass an order to decree and judgment against the Defendant to pay sum of Rs.6,52,32,396/- the suit of the plaintiff for a total sum of:- a. Rs.6,52,32,396/- as damages suffered by the plaintiff in total. b. Costs of the suit may also be awarded. c. Such further or other order to be passed and/or directed be several as may be deemed fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the present suit.) The appellant is the plaintiff in the suit. The suit has been laid for recovery of money. During the pendency of the suit, the respondent filed an application in A. No.8879 of 2019, seeking to file additional documents. The aforesaid application was allowed by the learned single Judge and hence the appeal. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that wrong provision has been quoted in the application seeking additional documents to be marked. The documents sought to be marked are in the form of electronic evidence. Therefore, they will have to be supported by affidavit. There is substantial delay on the part of the respondent in not cooperating with the trial. Therefore, the order of the learned single Judge requires interference. In support of her submission, learned counsel made reliance upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Nitin Gupta Vs. Texmaco Infrastructure and Holding Limited (C.S. (Comm) 1215/2016 and CC (Comm) 36/2017 dated 29.04.2019). 3. We have perused the order of the learned single Judge. the interest of the appellant has been taken care of sufficiently. The documents are directed to be received in evidence subject to admissibility, relevancy and proof. After all, this is a suit for recovery of money and therefore, the parties will have to be given sufficient opportunity to put forth their respective contentions. The maintainability of the appeal itself, in our considered view, is doubtful, though we are not willing to go into the same. Suffice it to state that the appellant cannot be a person aggrieved against the order permitting the respondent to mark the documents. The maintainability of the appeal itself, in our considered view, is doubtful, though we are not willing to go into the same. Suffice it to state that the appellant cannot be a person aggrieved against the order permitting the respondent to mark the documents. On a perusal of those documents, it is clear that they are nothing but e~mail communication between the parties apart from the power of attorney. Therefore, we are not inclined to entertain this appeal as the same would further delay the hearing of the suit. 4. Accordingly, the Original Side Appeal stands dismissed with the observation that the marking of documents would not amount to admissibility, relevancy and proof and therefore, it is well open to the respondent to raise all objections as per law. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 5. Taking into consideration the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that there is considerable delay, we direct the learned Additional Master II to complete the evidence within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If the respondent is not cooperating, the learned Additional Master II is at liberty to close the evidence and thereafter proceed further. The learned single Judge dealing with the final hearing of the suit is requested to dispose of the suit after the completion of the evidence as aforesaid within a further period of four weeks.