IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No.243 of 2007 Date of decision: 28.3.2008. Lachhman Singh and others ....Petitioners -Versus- Roop Lal and others ….Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No For the Petitioners: Mr.G.R.Palsra, Advocate. For Respondents: Mr.B.K.Malhotra, Advocate Deepak Gupta,J.(oral) This petition is directed against the order dated 22nd August, 2007 whereby the learned trial Court has rejected the two applications filed by the petitioners (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs) filed under Order 7 Rule 14 read with Section 151 CPC and under Section 151 CPC. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and also prayed that the relinquishment deed No.928 dated 7.7.1997; Mutations on the basis of the said deed; General Power of Attorney No.51 dated 23.5.1997; Relinquishment Deed No.820 dated 16.6.1997; Relinquishment Deed No.261 dated 26.6.1997 and mutations on the basis of deed dated 23.5.1997 be declared null and void. This suit was filed in the month of July, 1999. The suit was contested by the defendants. Issues were framed. Parties led evidence. When the case was listed for arguments on 12.1.2004, the plaintiffs filed an 2 application under Order 7 Rule 14 read with Section 151 CPC wherein it was prayed that it be allowed to produce the documents certified copies of which are already on record and are detailed in the prayer clause. It is obvious that as per this application, according to the plaintiffs the certified copies of the aforesaid documents were on record and all they wanted to do was to tender these documents in evidence. No prayer was made that they be allowed to lead evidence to prove these documents. Unfortunately, for some reason or the other this application though filed on 12.1.2004 was not decided for more than 3 years and in the meantime the plaintiffs filed another application under Section 151 CPC. In this application it was stated that in fact the certified copies of the documents referred to in the prayer clause of the suit had not been filed at all and it was prayed that they may be allowed to file the certified copies of the aforesaid documents and they may be permitted to produce and bring on record the said documents. Again no prayer has been made that they may be permitted to lead evidence and prove these documents. A combined reading of both the applications clearly shows that the only prayer is that the certified copies of the documents, referred to in the prayer clause of the suit, may be permitted to be placed on record and tendered in evidence. There is no doubt that the plaintiffs have been greatly remiss in prosecuting their case. The plaintiffs had specifically prayed that the documents be declared null and void and it was for them to prove these documents. They did not 3 care to either tender the documents in evidence nor did they care to bring the certified copies on record. However, the fact remains that now in the year 2007 certified copies of two of these documents had been placed on record along with the second application. The application itself was pending for more than three years. Therefore, without taking a very technical view of the matter, I feel that interest of justice would be served in case the documents which are already on the file of the trial Court, are allowed to be placed on record and the plaintiffs are permitted to tender the aforesaid documents in evidence. However, in case these documents are admissible in evidence without formal proof they may be marked as exhibits but in case they required to be proved and have not been proved according to law then the same shall not be exhibited. It is for the learned trial Court to decide whether the documents are admissible in evidence by simply tendering the same in evidence. The plaintiffs shall be permitted to produce and tender these documents subject to their paying Rs.5000/- as costs to the defendants. The costs shall be paid before the trial Court on the next date. In case the costs are not paid on the next date this order shall cease to operate. In view of the above discussion, the order of the learned trial Court is set-aside. The plaintiffs are permitted to produce and tender the documents which are already on the file of the learned trial Court. The trial Court shall not permit the plaintiff to file fresh documents or lead any oral evidence. The case shall be heard and 4 decided on before 31st July, 2008. Parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the trial Court on 28th April, 2008. The Registry is directed to send back the record of the trial Court immediately so as to reach the same well before the next date. March 28, 2008. ( Deepak Gupta ), PV Judge.