IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9460 of 2011 Sri Mehta Vishwanath Versus Smt. Chanchal Devi ----------- ORDER 05. 14.09.2011 Heard the learned counsel, Mr. Ashok Nandan Prasad appearing on behalf of the petitioner. (2) Notice was issued to the respondent by terms of order dated 24.06.2011. It appears that notice has been validly served on the respondent. However, nobody appeared on behalf of the respondent. (3) This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the defendant- petitioner against the order dated 25.04.2011 passed by Subordinate Judge V, Patna City in title suit no.44 of 1999 whereby the learned Court below rejected the application under Order 13 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C. filed on behalf of the petitioner for accepting the material documentary evidences which are necessary for the determination of the real controversy between the parties. (4) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Order 13 Rule 1 and 2 should have been liberally construed by the learned Court below because the document was not in possession of the petitioner. The said document was kept in the almirah of the previous Advocate and when at the time of evidence, the learned counsel demanded the documents, the petitioner searched the same 2 from the previous Advocate and it was found and obtained from him. Thereafter, the said documents have been filed. The learned counsel submitted that if the documents are not received as evidence in the case, the petitioner shall suffer serious loss. According to the learned counsel, the learned Court below has not exercised a jurisdiction vested in it by law. (5) From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Court below observed only that it appears that the application has been filed by the petitioner with a view to harass the plaintiff and to keep the proceeding pending. Except this, there is no other reason. (6) In Sarbanand Paswan vs. Mahendra Prasad Singh case, 1999(1) P.L.J.R. 118, a Division Bench of this Court has held that it is settled law that, if the documents are found to be relevant to decide the real issue in the controversy and when the Court felt that interest of justice requires that the documents may be received, exercising the power under Order 41, Rule 27 C.P.C. the appellate court would receive the documents and consider their effect thereof. When such is the position, when the documents are sought to be produced in the trial court, before the arguments are completed, normally they may be received, and opportunity be given to prove them and rebuttal if any and their relevance and effect they may have, be considered in deciding the issues arising in controversy. 3 Under these circumstances, the trial court was not justified in refusing to condone the delay and to receive the documents. (7) It is the case of the petitioner that the documents were not in possession of the petitioners and, therefore, there is no question of delay in filing them arises. Even if there was some delay in filing the said documents, the Court should have taken lenient view in condoning it as has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Billa Jagan Mohan Reddy vs. Billa Sanjeeva Reddy and others (1994) 4 S.C.C. 659. (8) In view of the above well settled principles of law, in my opinion, this is a fit case where in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, this Court can set aside the impugned order. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 25.04.2011 passed by Sub Judge V, Patna City in title suit no.44 of 1999 is hereby set aside and the Court below is directed to receive the documents which were sought to be filed according to law i.e. giving opportunity to the defendant-petitioner to get the documents marked as Exhibit. Accordingly, this writ application is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Saurabh/A.F.R. ( Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.)