fr/" Si— 9-^ ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISOARH, BILASPUR JVnt PetjtiQn 227 No. 7094/2008 S8: HON'BLE SHRt JUSTICE SUNII. KUMARStNHA PETITIONER/ BEFEN'DANT RESPONDENTS PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS Khorbahra, s/o Govind Halva, aged about 60 years, R/o Bhurka Bhat, Tah Dondi Lohara, District Du^(CG) Versus 1 Prem Singh. s/o Ram Singh.aged about64 yes-rs 2 Ram Karan, s/o Bliunuram Haiva, aged about 62 years (1 and 2, R/o vili. Bhurka Bhat, Tah; Dondi Lohara, District Durg(CG) 3 State of Chhatti^arh, through Co'Sector, Durg, District Durg(CG) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF IND!A Aooearance: ShriB.P.SuRta.counselforthepetitioner. Shri Prasun Bhaduri, Panel Lav/yer for the State/ respondent No.S/State. ORALQRDER (19.12.2008) Following order of the Gourt is passed by Sunil KumarSinha.J, Heard. '' The petitioner/clefendant has filedthls writ petition ynder Article 227 of the Constitution of tndia, challengirig the validlty of order dated 24.9.2008, passed in Civil Suit No, 6A-2008 by the 1s' Civil Judge, Ciass-11, Balod, District Durg(CG). He is aggrieved by that part of trie order, by which, an application flled by hitn under Order 8, Rule 1-A (3) -Ll-—.. 1 "_^ W.P. 227 No. 7094/2008 of the Code of Civil Procedure for production of documents, has been dismissed. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the aforesaid apptication was filed before framing ofthe issues, as after rejection of the said application on 24.9.2CX18, thelearned trial Judge had fixed the matter for framing of issues on 13.10.2008. Shri Gupta arguesthat the leamed frial Judge erred in iaw whlle dismissing such an application on the ground that the documents filed along with the application were not the originals or the copies. whlch may be admissible in evidehce under the provisions of Indian Evidence Act. He argues that itwas notthe stagefor the trial Judge to see about admissibility of the documents because thatmay have been raised at the time of evidence when the documents could have been exhibited by the party concerned. 1 have gone through the contents of the writ petition as also the impugned order and the documents filed along with the writ petition. Order 8, Rule 1-A (3) provides that " A document which ought to be produced in Court by the defendant under this rule, but, is not so produced shail not, Without the leave of the Court, be received in evldence on his behalf at the hearingof the suif. That means, according to the provisions of the aforesaid sub-rule. the defendant could have filed the documents in support of his contention though with the teave of the Court and the Court has refused to take thosedocuments on record on the ground that they were not admissible in evidence. The question of admissibility of a document has to be examined by a Court of iaw at the time when the same is being admitted for evidence and not atthe time of tendering of the documents in support ot' the pleadings ofthe pariy. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Court below was-not justified in rejecting the application of the petitioner/defendant on the ground of non-admissibilityof the documents at the stage of grant of ieave for production ofthe documents. In the result, the petition is allowedand the impugnea order, so far as it relates to rejection of the application filed under Order 8. Ruie 1-A (3) of the C.P.C.,is hereby set aside. The petitioner/defendant is given A ^ss'psacss, .^p''^l?S, "'°^.. £S ig .^- J^: -^Sf^SsSS^ . ^ 11- ,f ..^' jtuay ^.^ss^ W.P. 227 No. 7094/2008 another opportunity to fite an appropriate apptication fop production of the documents. However, it is observed thatthis time, the defendant wili tate care that he files the documents, which are legaliy admissible in evidence, so that, no complication is caused at the time of leading evictence and marking the documents as exhibits by the concerned Court. With the above directions, tHis petition is flnatty disposed of. It is made clear that this order is made ex-parte i.e. in absence of the opposite party; therefore, a tiberty is grahted to the opposite party that if they feel aggrieved by this order, they may raise their grievance before this Court in an appropriate forum. Sd/- SunilKumarSinha Judge d