1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1249/2008 (Imamudin @ Imam Ali Vs. Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Bhadra & ors.) Date of Order :: 7th March 2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr.V.K.Sharma for the petitioner Though the matter has not reached on regular board for consideration, learned counsel for the petitioner has made a mention stating urgency. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material placed on record. While dealing with the suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent as filed against the petitioner-defendant, by the impugned order dated 24.01.2008 (Annex.3), the learned Trial Court has proceeded to allow an application moved by the plaintiff under Order VII Rule 14 CPC; and has taken on record a document said to be the original partition deed, with the observations that the document is referred in the list of documents and its photostat is already on record. However, for the plaintiff not filing the document earlier, the learned Trial Court has allowed the application on costs of Rs.200/-. It is contended while seeking to assail the order aforesaid that ex facie the document in question appears to be a fabricated one; that the two signatures of the Notary, 2 City of Jaipur as available in the document do not tally; and that there had been other heirs of the deceased Loonkaran (father of the plaintiff) but only four of them are shown as parties to the document. It is contended that the document has been created later on and ought not to have been taken on record. The submissions remain bereft of substance. The suit has been filed for eviction and for recovery of arrears of rent by the plaintiff Gokul Chand and defendant- petitioner has taken a plea in the written statement (Annexure-2) that the plaintiff alone was not the owner of the suit property as other heirs of the original owner Loonkaran have their share in the property in question. In view of such plea taken by the defendant, if the plaintiff sought the leave to produce the original of the document relating to partition, and if the learned Trial Court considered it appropriate to take the same on record particularly when its photostat had already been filed and the document is referred in the list of documents, the exercise remains unexceptionable. The Court concerned, for the purpose of granting leave to produce would not have minutely gone into the correctness and probative value of the document in question; and in any case, the order impugned cannot be said to be causing any prejudice or leading to injustice. 3 Though in the suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent, only the question of existence of relationship of landlord and tenant is germane to the matter in issue but in the fact situation of the present case, if the learned Trial Court has granted leave to produce the document, there appears no reason to consider any interference in the impugned order at the instance of the petitioner-defendant. This writ petition remains bereft of substance and rather a frivolous one. Ordinarily, as a result of the aforesaid, this petition would have simply been rejected but it appears necessary to emphasize that with amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure by the Amendment Act of the year 1999, particularly with alteration in the scheme and operation of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is, sparingly, considered in such matters relating to the orders passed by the subordinate Courts during the course of a civil litigation where the impugned order might lead to substantial failure of justice or to such injury that could be said to be irreparable one; or the matters of the like nature. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances, the exercise of jurisdiction in the present case, of taking the original document on record upon payment of costs, cannot be said to be leading to any injustice what to say of substantial failure of justice. However, for the challenge 4 put on behalf of the petitioner to a reasonable and just order passed by the learned Trial Court, this Court is constrained to observe that the Trial Court has, of course, committed an error in allowing costs of Rs.200/- to the petitioner. This Court, while rejecting another such frivolous writ petition, being CWP No.732/2008 ( Shanker Lal and Anr. Vs. Additional District Judge, Sujangarh & Anr.) on 01.02.2008 has observed and held,- ''It is to be imbibed that rules of procedure are intended to subserve the cause of justice and any order made during the course of litigation pertaining to procedure that facilitates decision of real matter in issue on merits, and of extending opportunity to a party to place his case before the court, if not prohibited by law, ordinarily does not call for interference. After amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure by the Amendment Act of 1999 and alteration of the provisions of Section 115 CPC, the writ jurisdiction of this Court particularly under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is, sparingly, considered for application in the cases where the order impugned would result in manifest failure of justice or of the situation like nature but and however, such jurisdiction is not meant to provide an opportunity to any litigant to suggest a proposition that is in opposition to the requirements of the decision of a lis by the courts on merits after affording fullest opportunity of hearing to the parties; or to somehow create spokes in progress of the litigation. In the overall circumstances of the case, this Court is satisfied that the petitioners do not deserve to be allowed the amount of costs of Rs.2,000/- as imposed by the learned trial court; and such amount of costs should go in legal aid.'' This Court would have considered the proposition of saddling the petitioner with further costs but it is noticed that the petitioner is said to be a person of unsound mind and his 5 son, who has been appointed as guardian by the learned Trial Court , is prosecuting the matter on his behalf. In this view of the matter, no further orders are passed against the petitioner but the amount of costs as allowed by the impugned order should be diverted to the concerned District Legal Services Authority. The learned Trial Court shall pass appropriate orders in that regard and shall proceed with the trial expeditiously. The writ petition fails and is, therefore, rejected with the observations and requirements aforesaid. A copy of this order be sent to the Trial Court. (DINESH MAHESHWARI),J. MK