1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5117/2006 (Sawai Singh Vs. Satyanarayan & ors.) Date of Order :: 22nd May 2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr.N.S.Rajpurohit for the petitioner Mr.Vinit Sanadhya for the respondents The defendant in a suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent has preferred this writ petition against the order dated 14.08.2006 (Annex.4) whereby the learned Trial Court has refused leave to produce certain documents on record. By moving an application (Annex.3) with reference to the provisions of Order XIII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), the defendant-petitioner stated that upon his handing over case file to the newly appointed lawyer on 10.07.2006, it was noticed that the original documents were not filed in the Court though mentioned in the list of documents; and when the lawyer enquired as to why such documents were not filed, the petitioner could only state his ignorance of legal requirements. The petitioner submitted that if the documents were not taken on record, he would be deprived of justice for none of his fault. The learned Trial Court has proceeded to reject the application with the observations that the suit in question was filed about 13 years back and the defendant has failed to file the original documents; that no party could take advantage by stating mistake on the part of the previous lawyer and change 2 of lawyer was not a justified ground; and that the application was filed under non-existent provisions of Order XIII Rule 2 CPC whereas now under Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) CPC the defendant could produce document with leave of the Court . During the course of submissions in this writ petition, it was noticed that the application as moved on behalf of the petitioner (Annex.3) had been vague and uncertain, bereft of any averment on the description of the documents sought to be produced and on their relevancy to the matter in issue; and at the same time, nothing on the aspect of relevancy of the documents in question has been indicated in the impugned order either. Learned counsel for the parties were, therefore, asked about the description and particulars of the documents that were sought to be produced. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the documents are essentially in proof of the fact that the amount of rent was sent to the plaintiff by money order and then was deposited in the Court. Leaned counsel for the respondents has shown a certified copy of the list of documents dated 03.08.2008 as filed by the petitioner alongwith certified copies of some of the documents sought to be produced. The documents include money order receipts and coupons and cash deposit challans relating, inter alia, to a part of the period the petitioner is alleged to be in default in payment of rent; and the documents cannot altogether be dubbed as irrelevant. 3 Having examined the matter in its totality, this Court expressed prima facie opinion that despite delay and mistake on the part of the petitioner, in the interest of justice; for effectual and complete determination of the questions involved in the suit; and in order to avoid unnecessary procedural wrangles regarding production of evidence particularly looking to the fact that suit was filed way back in the year 1995, the petitioner might be permitted to produce relevant of the documents on reasonable terms. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents responded with the submissions, in all fairness, that the plaintiffs would not stand ceremonies and if relevant of the documents are taken on record, would not raise objection but then, for the reason that the plaintiffs have already concluded their evidence, if any document is permitted to be taken on record, the plaintiffs' rights to adduce rebuttal may be safeguarded. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs has rightly taken the stand in conformity with the principles that laws of procedure are designed to facilitate justice and further its ends and are not intended to punish the parties for every mistake committed during the course of trial of a civil suit. It is true that the title of the application as moved on behalf of the petitioner was not correct when it referred to Order XIII Rule 2 CPC that has been deleted from the statue and even the contents of the application were not of exactitude but then, in a preference to 4 decide the matter on merits after affording fullest opportunity of hearing to the parties, when the documents were nevertheless available for perusal, it would have been discreet on the part of the learned Trial Court if they were at least glanced at before refusing leave to receive them in evidence. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs-respondents has very rightly not attempted to justify the order impugned Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears appropriate that the impugned order dated 14.08.2006 be set aside and the question be remitted for consideration of the learned Trial Court while permitting the petitioner to file another application with specific particulars about the documents sought to be produced with reference to their relevancy; and with the observations that if all or any of the documents are permitted to be produced, the plaintiffs be afforded adequate opportunity of rebuttal. Consequently, while setting aside the impugned order dated 14.08.2006, this writ petition is allowed in the manner and to the extent indicated above. No costs. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. MK