IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 136 of 2008 Date of decision: 18.6.2008 Smt. Chinta Devi Petitioner. Versus Sh. Raj Mal Rajpoot Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 NO. For the petitioner: Mr. B.N.Mishra, Advocate with Mr. Kartik Kumar, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. B.S.Thakur, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. (oral) This order shall dispose of the present petition filed under article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner (here-in-after referred to as the judgement debtor) filed an application before the learned trial Court for permission to place on record certain documents. This application was treated to be an application under Order 8 Rule 1 A (3) CPC. Briefly stated, the facts as can be gleamed from the material on record are that the respondent (here- in-after referred to as the decree holder) filed a suit against the judgement debtor. This suit was 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. compromised and a decree in terms of the compromise was passed. According to the decree holder the judgement debtor did not abide by the terms of the decree, therefore, he filed the execution petition in question. This execution petition was filed in the year 1984. It was dismissed in default and was restored in the year 2004. The decree holder has led evidence in order to prove his case that the judgement debtor has not complied with the terms of the decree. The judgement debtor was still to lead evidence when the present application was filed to place on record the report, plan and photographs taken by an architect appointed by the judgement debtor. The judgement debtor also prayed that he may be permitted to place on record certified copy of the judgement dated 20.8.1986 passed in earlier execution proceedings arising out of the same decree. The judgement debtor also wants to place on record certified copy of the sale deed dated 20th March, 1997 allegedly executed by the decree holder in favour of one Ms. Sadhana Chandel . This application was opposed and the leaned trial Court has rejected the application on the following grounds:- “The applicant wants to produce the report, plan and photographs which could have been procured earlier and so far as judgement dated 20.8.1986 and Sale Deed of dated 20.3.1997 are concerned, same were in existence even prior to the filing of the main proceedings. Therefore, the present application can not be allowed to fill up the lacuna and to create the evidence in favour of the respondent. Hence, this application is hereby dismissed. Application is disposed of accordingly. It be tagged with the main case file after due registration.” The learned trial Court has taken about seven months to dispose of this application and he has passed an order which shows total lack of application of mind. He has observed that the documents could have been procured earlier. As is apparent from the averments made in the application, the architect gave his report only on 13.11.2007 and the application was filed within one week thereafter on 15.11.2007. The judgement dated 20.8.1986 was delivered in earlier execution proceedings arising out of the same decree and therefore, would be necessary to decide the controversy in issue. Even the sale deed would be relevant to show whether the judgement debtor has complied with the decree or not because that would show how the property has developed after the decree was passed. These documents are essential to decide the controversy in dispute. The learned trial Court completely lost sight of the fact that the judgement debtor has still to lead her evidence and the application has been filed before evidence of the judgement debtor has commenced. Time and again, the apex Court and this Court have held that rules of procedure should be interpreted in a manner to further the cause of justice. Rules of procedure are not meant to thwart the process of justice. No doubt, in case a party is indolent or highly negligent, the Court may refuse to exercise jurisdiction in its favour, but the litigant should not be thrown out on technical ground only. Keeping in view the aforesaid principle, I am of the view that application in the present case should have been allowed. However, since the judgement debtor could have obtained the report of architect at an earlier stage, I feel that the decree holder can be compensated for the delay by burdening the judgement debtor with costs. Consequently, the present petition is allowed. The application filed by the judgement debtor for placing on record the documents is also allowed. This will, however, be subject to payment of costs of Rs.1500/-. Costs will be paid to the decree holder on the next date of hearing. The judgement debtor shall also ensure the service of all the witnesses by taking Dasti summons so that the matter is not delayed. Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 18th June, 2008 (Deepak Gupta), J. ™