IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMPMO No.24/2007 Reserved on: 24.12.2008 Decided on: 7.1. 2009 Braham Dass. …Petitioner. Versus Onkar Chand and another. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1. yes For the petitioner : Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, J. This petition is directed against the order dated 27.12.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hamirpur in CMA No. 218/2006 (Civil Suit No. 79/1998). Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner filed a suit for declaration that he is owner of the land as entered in Khasra No. 366 measuring 3 kanals 9 marlas situated in village Khagal, Mauza Jangal, Tehsil and District Hamirpur as per jamabandi for the year 1992-93. According to the petitioner, the entries made in favour of the respondents were illegal, wrong and without jurisdiction. The petitioner by 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 way of consequential relief also claimed that the respondents be restrained from interfering with the ownership and possession of the suit land and they may also be restrained from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff. A decree was claimed for possession by way of demolition of construction in case any construction is found to be raised over the suit land. The respondents contested the suit by filing written statement. The trial court framed the issues on 17.12.2001. An additional issue was framed by the trial court on 9.3.2005. The respondents closed their evidence and thereafter the case was fixed for rebuttal evidence of the petitioner. The petitioner filed an application under order 7 Rule 14 (3) read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 17.11.2006 for grant of permission to file documentary evidence. The respondents filed their reply to the application on 20.11.2006. The trial court dismissed the application on 27.12.2006. This petition has been directed against the order dated 27.12.2006 . Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate has strenuously argued that the learned trial court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and the order is contrary to law. Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate has supported the order dated 27.12.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hamirpur. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully. The application has been preferred by the petitioner for producing on record after the respondents had led their evidence certified copy of the order passed by the Settlement Collector, Kangra dated 15.6.2006 passed in review appeal No. 18/2005/SO and certified copy of order dated 4.2.2006 alongwith certified copy of complaint passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur in Private Complaint No. 92-1/2004, certified 3 copy of Khasra Girdawari for the year 24.10.1998 to 28.4.1999 of village Khagal Mouza Jangal, certified copy of Jamabandi for the year 2002-03 of Mauza Khagal Mouza Jangal alongwith Photostat copy of application dated 29.4.1998 moved by Sh. Braham Dass to the Tehsildar Hamirpur. The sum and substance of the reply filed by the respondents was that the application could not be entertained at the belated stage. According to the respondents the documents which the petitioner wanted to place on record had no relevance in the case and the same was filed to harass the respondents. Mr. Romesh Verma has strenuously argued that the certified copies of the orders, which the petitioner wanted to place on record were per se admissible. Mr. Ajay Sharma submitted that these documents could not be produced in rebuttal of evidence. According to him there is a set procedure whereby in rebuttal these documents could be produced by any of the witnesses summoned by the petitioner. It is true that the petitioner has averred in the application that these documents were being filed to rebut the evidence of the respondents. The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are to be read so as to advance the substantial justice. The pleadings were to be read in totality by the trial court. The endeavour of the petitioner was only to place certified copies of the documents necessary for the adjudication of the lis between the parties. The trial court has not at all taken into consideration the language of order 7 rule 14 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which reads thus: “(3) 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.” 4 The documents are 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, however, the documents can be produced subsequently with the leave of the court. Whether the documents are relevant or not could not be decided at the stage of considering the application under order 7 Rule 14 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure and this question was to be determined at the stage of arguments. The learned trial court has also misconstrued the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court cited in the order. There is no specific bar to produce the documents at the stage of hearing with the leave of the court. The court endeavour must be to adjudicate the lis effectively and if certain documents could not be filed with the plaint until and unless serious prejudice is caused to the other side, the same must be permitted to be produced on record. The other party also gets an opportunity to rebut the evidence produced by the parties during the hearing. The court has to exercise the jurisdiction for the production of the documents liberally. It is settled principle that opportunity should be afforded to the parties to produce their evidence and state their case before the Court. The Court has to exercise the jurisdiction in favour of the production of the evidence instead of scuttling it. The courts should not permit the parties to indulge in dilatory tactics to stall the proceedings. The court has discretion and generally speaking it will be wise exercise of the discretion to permit the production of the evidence and the question is to be decided in each case in the light of the particular circumstances. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 27.12.2006 Annexure P-7 is set aside. The application as filed by the petitioner under order 7 Rule 14 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure is allowed. The trial court is directed to hear the suit and decide the same expeditiously as far as possible within a period of six months from today. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned trial court on 5 16.1.2009 when it shall take further proceedings in accordance with law and allow the production of documents to be led on behalf of the petitioner. By way of abundant precaution it is made clear that the respondents may raise objection to any particular document produced, which objection shall be decided by the trial court at the stage of arguments in accordance with law. There will, however, be no order as to costs. January 1, 2009 (Rajiv Sharma ), J. *awasthi*