IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.558 of 2007 RAM BARAN RAI & ORS Versus SHAMBHU NATH KUMAR & ORS ----------- 6. 15.9.2008 Heard counsel for the parties. Counsel for the defendant- petitioners submits that when the document in question was already referred to by the defendants in their written statement as is clear from paragraph 13 thereof, the court below ought to have taken into consideration the circumstances for not producing the document as was explained by them in their application dated 1.2.2007. He further submits that Such circumstance being that the same document was also the subject matter of an earlier suit, T.S.No. 22/1988 by itself was sufficient to allow such prayer of the defendant- petitioners. On the other hand the counsel for the plaintiff- opposite parties would submit that it is a clear case of negligence on the part of the defendant- petitioners inasmuch as after the evidence of the plaintiffs had been closed such documents by way of introducing them through a supplementary list of document had been sought to be 2 introduced by the defendant- petitioners. He would submit that the plaintiffs would suffer substantial loss both in terms of time and money if the prayer of the petitioners for taking the documents by way of exhibiting it in evidence is allowed. Having considered the aforementioned rival submissions, this Court is of the view that the interest of justice would require such document to be taken on record, especially when the plaintiff- opposite parties are not being taken by surprise as with regard to the document in question. As noticed above, the document was already referred to in the written statement of the defendant- petitioners. This Court is not unmindful that exhibiting the said document in evidence may require plaintiff- opposite parties to lead additional evidence in rebuttal involving both of loss of time and additional expenditure but then Mr. Ram Kumar Sharma, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has fairly submitted that the petitioners would be ready to compensate the loss of plaintiff- opposite parties by paying any 3 reasonable amount that may be fixed for this purpose by this Court. Considering the fact that the suit is of the year 2000 and has remained pending for eight years in which the plaintiff- opposite parties have already closed their evidence, this Court would direct the defendant- petitioners to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- by way of cost to the plaintiff- opposite parties within a period of one month from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order and on furnishing the proof of such payment by the petitioners the court below will permit the petitioners to exhibit the document in question in evidence in accordance with law. In the result this application is allowed and the impugned order is set aside subject to the aforesaid observations and directions. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/