1 3 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.203/2008. Mangi Lal & Ors. Vs. Banshi Lal & Ors. Date of Order :: 13th February 2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Sandeep Sarupariya, for the petitioners. Mr. S.G. Ojha, for the respondents Nos. 1 & 2. ..... BY THE COURT: Challenge is given in this writ petition to the order dated 16.11.2007 (Annex.11) as passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kapasan rejecting an application moved by the defendants-petitioners seeking leave to produce documents with reference to the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1A of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). It appears from the perusal of the impugned order that by way of an application dated 04.12.2004, the petitioners wanted to produce copies of certain affidavits and statements as recorded in other civil suit relating to the property in dispute; and certified copy of the sale-deed dated 10.12.1946, photostat whereof is already on record. The said application has been disposed of by the learned trial court with the observations that the affidavits and other part of the statements as recorded in other proceedings could definitely be put in cross-examination of the witnesses concerned in the course of trial in this case and for that purpose, no permission is required. It has also been observed that photostat of the sale-deed dated 10.12.1946 being already on 2 record, its certified copy could have been produced even without application. However, the learned trial court has proceeded to deal with and reject another application moved on 01.09.2007 (Annex.10) under Order 8 Rule 1-A (3) CPC whereby the petitioners wanted to produce certified copy of the judgment and decree dated 23.08.2007 as passed in earlier Civil Suit No.15/2005 (Old No.94/1985) said to be involving the same parties and the same property. The learned trial court has referred to the stand of the defendants-petitioners that the property in dispute and the parties in the said earlier suit were the same as are involved in the present suit, but has observed that if that were so, resort ought to have been to Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Then, the learned trial court has also observed that the cause of action and the subject matter of the two cases are different and, therefore, the document does not appear to be relevant though the parties appear to be the same. The part of the order aforesaid whereby the judgment and decree dated 23.08.2007 in relation to the other suit have been refused to be taken on record is questioned in this writ petition; however, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs- respondents Nos. 1 and 2 has not put the matter into much contention, and rightly so. The observations of the learned trial court that if the parties and subject matter of the two suits were the same, resort ought 3 to have been to Section 10 CPC are of no relevance and seem rather inapt because the fact of the matter remains that the proceedings in the other suit have culminated into the decision dated 23.08.2007. It is noticeable from the written-statement filed in the present case (Annex.6) that the defendants-petitioners did state an objection on competence of the present suit for pendency of the previous one. Be that as it may, if for any reason the provisions of Section 10 CPC have not been applied to the present suit, that cannot by itself be decisive on the question of relevance of the judgment and decree rendered in the previously instituted suit. Having examined the material placed on record, this Court is of opinion that merely because of a different relief having been claimed, the decision in the said suit on 23.08.2007 cannot altogether be ruled irrelevant at this stage. The document could have been taken on record without causing any prejudice to the plaintiffs. It is to be imbibed that the rules of procedure are intended to subserve the cause of justice and are required to be applied in the manner that the parties to the litigation are afforded fullest opportunity of putting their case before the court. In the fact situation of this case, the learned trial court would have been discreet in allowing the application moved by the defendants and proceeding with the matter further. The learned trial court has observed that the matter was an old one. For expeditious disposal of the matter, the proceedings are of course required to 4 be taken with reasonable dispatch but then, and for that matter, the parties cannot be denied complete opportunity of hearing and of placing their entire case before the court. The time spent in this unnecessary litigation would have definitely been saved if the learned trial court would have taken the said judgment and decree on record. It has, of course, been fair on the part of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents in not putting the matter into much contention before this Court. In view of the submissions made and looking to the subject matter of this writ petition, it appears appropriate to pass final orders on the application moved by the defendants-petitioners so that the trial may proceed further. Accordingly, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed to the extent indicated above; the impugned order dated 16.11.2007 stands modified; the application moved by the petitioners-defendants on 01.09.2007 stands allowed and the judgment and decree dated 23.08.2007 as rendered in Civil Suit No.15/2005 (Old No.94/1985) are ordered to be taken on record in the present Civil Suit No. 22/2006. There shall be no order as to costs of this writ petition. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. Mohan/