1 34 S.B. CIVIL MISC.WRIT PETITION NO.4707/2007 (Girish Sharma Vs. District Judge Pratapgarh) Date of Order :: 05th May 2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr.S.L.Jain, for the petitioner Mr.L.R.Choudhary, for the respondent. .... Having heard learned counsel for the defendant- petitioner and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order dated 06.07.2007 as passed by the District Judge, Pratapgarh in Civil Original Suit No. 6/2004 whereby the document filed by the plaintiffs has been taken on the record under Order VII Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) on cost of Rs. 200/-. The learned Trial Court has observed that the document in question is certified copy of the written statement; and has found it relevant for determination of the question involved in the suit particularly when the said written statement is alleged to have been submitted by the father of the defendant and is related to the will in question that is subject of consideration in the present suit. Seeking to assail the order dated 06.07.2007, it has strenuously been contended by the learned counsel for the 2 petitioner that the learned Trial Court has not looked into the record of the case; that the document in question is not a copy of written statement as observed by the learned trial Court but the same is only a copy of some objection petition filed under Order XXI Rule 58 CPC. Learned counsel further submitted that the document cannot be said to be relevant for the questions involved in the matter and ought not to have taken on record. The hyper-technical submissions as made with reference to the nomenclature of documents are of no effect. True it is that the learned Trial Court has referred the said document as a written statement, probably with reference to the averments as taken in the application filed by the plaintiffs (Annex.4), whereas the document appears to be a copy of an objection petition filed under Order XXI Rule 58 CPC; and true further it is that the observations as made by the learned Trial Court are not precisely in conformity with the contents of the document sought to be produced but then, crux of the matter is that the document nevertheless remains a certified copy of the pleadings as made by the father of the defendant in the proceedings related to the property in dispute and there is reference in the document about the alleged dealings with the property in question by the ancestors. The document cannot be said to be altogether irrelevant for the purpose of the 3 present suit; and merely because of the learned Trial Court having referred it by the name of written statement, or because of some error by the Trial Court while referring to its contents, the relevancy of the document is not lost. With amendment to the CPC by the Amendment Act of the year 1999, particularly with alteration in the scheme and operation of its Section 115, interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is, sparingly, considered in the matters relating to the orders passed by the subordinate Courts during the course of a civil litigation in such kind of cases where the impugned order might lead to substantial failure of justice or to such injury that could be said to be irreparable one to a party to the litigation; or the matters of the like nature. The order impugned taking the document on record in the present case is only allowing the plaintiff to produce another piece of evidence in relation of the questions involved in the matter and then, the said piece of evidence is nothing but certified copy of the court record whose genuineness is beyond question. The impugned order cannot be said to be suffering from any jurisdictional error and in any case does not lead to substantial failure of justice so as to call for inference by this Court. This Court, while rejecting such writ petitions seeking to question the orders passed by the learned Trial Court taking 4 the documents on record, has adopted the proposition of diverting the costs to legal aid rather than to the party complaining against such orders; but in the facts and circumstances of the present case, while dismissing this writ petition such a proposition is not being adopted particularly for the plaintiff not stating very strong reason in the application (Annex.4) for delayed production of document and then, for the impugned order being not precise on the relevant points. However, as already discussed, the impugned order calls for no interference in writ jurisdiction. This writ petition is, therefore, dismissed but without any order as to costs. The record be returned immediately. It shall be required of the Trial Court to proceed with the matter expeditiously. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. s.soni