THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 621 of 2004 Smt.Pingla Devi, D/O late Shri Prem Singh, Resident of 3, New Road, Dehradun, District Dehradun. …... Petitioner. Versus 1. Civil Judge( Junior Division) Dehradun. 2. Smt. Shanti Devi Negi, W/O Shri Jagjeet Singh Negi R/o Village & Post Office Mohbewala, District- Dehradun. … Respondents. Sri Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no.1. Sri Alok Singh, Senior Adv. Assisted by Sri Gopal Narain, learned counsel for respondent no.2. Dated March 22, 2006. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for quashing the impugned order dated 13.7.2004 passed by the respondent no.1, Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition. By the impugned order, the respondent no.1 did not admit three documents filed per list 178-C by the plaintiff and returned the same to her. Relevant facts giving rise to the writ petition are that Civil Suit No. 86 of 1997, Prem Singh Vs. Vidyawati was filed before the Civil Judge (Jr.Division) Dehradun. During the pendency of the suit, the sole plaintiff died and the petitioner was substituted as plaintiff. The issues were already framed in the suit and the case was at the stage of evidence. The petitioner filed three documents per list 178-C. The defendant filed objection 186-C to the effect that the applicant has not applied for permission for admitting the documents at the evidence stage. 2 The only ground for rejection is that the case was fixed for evidence and the plaintiff-petitioner had filed three documents per list 178-C on 20.4.2004. It reveals from the impugned order that the sole ground for rejection is that no application was filed for permission to file the documents. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that oral prayer was made before the trial court but the same was not accepted and it was a mistake on the part of the counsel, for which the litigant should not suffer. Order 7, Rule 14(3) of the C.P.C. provides that “ a document which ought to be produced in Court by the plaintiff when the plaint is presented, or to be entered in the list to be added or annexed to the plaint but is not produced or entered accordingly, shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit.” Admittedly, the application was not moved before the trial court for permission in that regard. In the facts and circumstances of the case and having heard the submissions of the learned counsel on the issue that the party should not suffer for a mistake on the part of the counsel, it seems proper to meet the ends of justice that the impugned order dated 13-7-2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Division) Dehradun is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 13.7.2004 (Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition) is hereby set aside and the petitioner is given liberty to file the application as provided under Order 7, Rule 14(3) of the C.P.C. The learned Civil Judge (Jr.Division) shall decide the application, if so moved by the 3 petitioner, without being prejudiced by the observations recorded by this Court, in accordance with law and on the grounds mentioned therein on merit. The writ Petition is allowed. The Court below will proceed as observed above. (B.S.Verma, J.) RCP