Civil Revision No.3553 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No.3553 of 2010 Date of decision: 29.4.2011 Paramjit Singh ......petitioner Versus Subhash Chand .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. S.K.Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.M.K.Singla, Advocate, for the respondent. **** SABINA, J. The plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery on the basis of bahi entries. During the pendency of the suit, an application was moved by the plaintiff to enable him to comply with the provisions of Order 7 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC for short). Vide the impugned order dated 23.4.2010, the trial Court allowed the said application. Hence, the present petition by the defendant. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the trial Court had erred in allowing the application under Order 7 Rule 17 CPC as the plaintiff was required to produce on record the original bahi entries at the time of filing of the plaint. Now the case was listed for rebuttal evidence, if any, and arguments. At this stage, the plaintiff could not be allowed to fill up the lacuna in his case. In Civil Revision No.3553 of 2010 2 support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on Som Parkash Bansal vs. Managing Committee, Hindu Higher Secondary Schoo, Kaithal and another 2003 (1) RCR (Civil) 270, wherein it was held that the Order 7 Rule 14 was mandatory and if copies of the impugned orders under challenge had not been produced, the suit filed by the plaintiff was not maintainable. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that the photocopies of the bahi entries were already on record. In fact the original entries had also been produced before the Court but due to inadvertence the photocopies could not be attested by the Court. Hence, now the plaintiff was ready to produce the original bahis for attestation of the photocopies by the Court. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on Smt.Sushil Rani vs. Attam Parkash 2007 (3) RCR (Civil) 296, wherein it was held as under:- “6. 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 an obstruction but an aid of justice. Therefore, Civil Revision No.3553 of 2010 3 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.” After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves dismissal. Order 7 Rule 17 CPC reads as under:- “17.Production of shop-book..- (1) Save in so far as is otherwise provided by the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891 (18 of 1891), where the document on which the plaintiff sues is an entry in a shop-book or other account in his possession or power, the plaintiff shall produce the book or account at the time of fling the plaint, together with a copy of the entry on which he relies. (2) Original entry to be marked and returned.- The Court, or such officer as it appoints in this behalf, shall 'forthwith mark the document for the purpose of identification; and, after examining and comparing the copy with the original, shall, if it s found correct, certify it to be so and return the book to the plaintiff and cause the copy to be filed.” In the present case, admittedly, the photocopies of the bahi entries were already on record. The case of the plaintiff is that the same could not be attested by the Court although the original had been produced in the Court. It is not a case where the plaintiff had not produced the bahi entries on record Civil Revision No.3553 of 2010 4 at all at the time of filing of the plaint. The photocopies had been duly produced on record and now the plaintiff wants to get the same attested from the Court by producing the original bahi entries. It has been time and again held by the Apex Court as well as by this Court that all the rules and procedure are handmaid of justice. A procedural law should not ordinarily be construed as mandatory, procedural law is always subservient to and is in aid of justice. Any interpretation which eludes or frustrates the recipient of justice is not to be followed. The plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery and the same cannot be defeated on the basis of procedure which is prescribed only to advance the case of justice. In case the plaintiff is permitted to produce the original bahi entries at this stage also, it would just advance the cause of justice. The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner fails to advance the case of the petitioner as it is based on different facts. In the said case the copies of the orders, which were under challenge, had not been placed on record and hence, it was held that the suit was not maintainable. Whereas, in the present case, photocopies of the bahi entries had already been placed on record and now these are merely sought to be got attested by producing the original entries. The impugned, thus, calls for no interference by this Court. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE April 29, 2011 anita