IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4974 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision : 05.10.2009 Rattan Lal .....Petitioner versus Amrik Singh .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Johny Vij, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Parminder P.Sharma, Advocate, for the respondent. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- ORDER Surya Kant, J. (Oral) This revision petition is directed by the plaintiff against the order dated 1.8.2008 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Moonak, whereby an application under Order 7 Rule 17 CPC moved by him for production of the original account books, has been dismissed. The petitioner has filed a suit for recovery of Rs.1,76,000/- against the respondent. It is averred that he has already attached photostat copies of the relevant entries of the account books (Bahi) duly maintained by the firm. Subsequently, he wanted to prove those photostat copies by C.R. No.4974 of 2008 (O&M) 2 producing the original account books but his application has been dismissed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) after observing that the original account books ought to have been produced at the time of filing of the suit. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a decision of this Court in Sushil Rani versus Attam Parkash, 2007 (2) Civil Court Cases 796, holding as follows:- “In view of the above judgments wherein it has been held that the procedure is handmaid and not the mistress, a lubricant, not a resistant in the administration of justice, the plaintiff cannot be denied an opportunity of participating in the justice only because the original bahi entries were not produced alongwith the plaint. By non- production of the original bahi entries no right of the defendant has been infringed. It was rule of procedure and such rule of procedure is always subservient to and is in aid of justice. It is not to be a tyrant but a servant, not on obstruction but an aid of justice. Therefore, substantive right of the plaintiff to recover the amount due in accordance with law, cannot be defeated on the basis of procedure which is prescribed only to advance the cause of justice.” Having regard to the view taken by this Court in Sushil Rani's case (supra), it appears that the petitioner can be permitted to produce the original account books at a later stage also, moreso, when no serious prejudice is likely to be caused to the respondent who can be compensated with suitable costs. C.R. No.4974 of 2008 (O&M) 3 For the reasons afore-stated, the revision petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 1.8.2008 is hereby set-aside and the petitioner is permitted to produce the original accounts books subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- to the respondent-defendant, by giving only one opportunity to the petitioner-plaintiff in this regard. It is clarified that production of the original accounts books shall not necessarily be construed as an acceptance of the entries made therein. Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 05-10-2009 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE