1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6405 OF 2011 _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _______________________|_______________________________________ Mr.P.P.Khandagale Patil, advocate for the petitioner. CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 25.08.2011. 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner is the original defendant. The trial of the suit proceeded. The plaintiff led his evidence. After the closure of the evidence of the plaintiff, the defendant also examined himself. Thereafter, examination-in-Chief of his witness was filed. After the said examination-in- Chief was filed, the defendant filed an application Exh.115 for production of documents along with the list annexed which were 14 in number. The said application is rejected. The defendant 2 thereafter, filed an application for review. The said application is rejected on the ground that proper Court fees is not paid. The defendant has assailed the order rejecting the application for production of the documents and his application for review in the present petition. 3. Mr.Khandagale, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the documents produced on record are relevant and material for effective adjudication of the dispute. The defendant is running his business in the said premises for more than 40 years. Only on the ground that they are produced late, the production could not have been denied. The Court below rejected the Review Application on erroneous ground that the Court fees is not paid. The Court was of the opinion that the Court fees is required, the petitioner would have deposited the same but no opportunity was given to the petitioner in that regard. The learned counsel further contends that the procedural law is to be interpreted liberally and an opportunity deserves to be given to the petitioner. 3 4. The proposition that the procedural law is in aid of a substantial justice need not be dilated i.e. a settled law. However, in the present matter, the plaintiff has already closed his evidence. Even the defendant has examined himself and the witness has submitted his examination-in-Chief and thereafter the said documents were produced. I have perused the application Exh.115. The said application is bereft of any reasons for non- production of the said documents earlier. As per Order 13 Rule 1 of the C.P.C., the parties are required to produce the documents at or before the settlement of issues. No doubt, the Court would have still jurisdiction to accept the production of documents at a latter stage. However, the same has to be for sound reasons. The application does not mention a single reason for non-production of the said documents earlier except that the documents are relevant and important. 5. As the application is bereft of any grounds for non-production of the documents earlier and the relevancy of the documents, the trial Court 4 did not commit any error in rejecting the said application. 6. In light of the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) Dt.25.08.2011. asp/office/wp6405.11