IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Civil Revision No.182 of 2007. Date of decision :15.05.2008 Smt.Savitri Devi ….Petitioner Versus Smt.Karmo Devi & Others ….Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr.Ankush Dass Sood, Advocate. For the respondent: None. Dev Darshan Sud, J. Notice was issued to the respondents, but nobody appeared on their behalf. They are proceeded ex-parte. This revision petition has been preferred by the defendant against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Badsar, rejecting the application of the defendant under Order 8 Rule 1-A(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure for production of sale deed in evidence. An application was filed by the defendant before the learned trial Court that the original copy of sale deed Vasika No.561, dated 17.12.1994 qua the part of the suit land executed by 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the judgment? 2 Smt.Kalaso Devi through G.P.A., during her life time, be allowed to be proved in evidence in accordance with law. This application was rejected only on the ground that the document being within the knowledge of the opposite party is not produced in the first instance. The approach adopted by the learned trial Court cannot be commended. Surely, the provisions of Order 1 Rule 1-A(3) of the Code of Civil procedure for production of original document are meant to advance the cause of justice and not to throw the cases out at its initial stage. Mere delay without there being anything more cannot be a ground for rejection of the application. More-so which the document sought to be proved on the record is a registered document and subject to certain presumptions under the law. In these circumstances, the order rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for production of additional evidence is quashed and set aside. A direction is issued to the trial Court to decide the matter in accordance with law. Needless to say that mere production of the document is no proof of its contents and authenticity etc. which has to be established in accordance with law. All the miscellaneous applications are disposed of. Interim stay granted on 12.10.2007 is vacated. 3 Petitioner to appear before the trial Court on 28th June, 2008. May 15, 2008. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.