1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8327/2007 Kalu Ram @ Sher Singh & Ors. Vs.Om Prakash & Anr. Date of Order :: 9th May 2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Dr.Sachin Acharya for the petitioners. Mr.V.K.Bhadu for the respondent No.1. ... BY THE COURT: This writ petition is directed against the order dated 14.11.2007 (Annex.9) passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhadra in Civil Suit No.56/2004 rejecting an application moved by the defendants-petitioners under Order VIII Rule 1-A (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petitioners are facing a suit for eviction and recovery of mesne profits as filed by the plaintiff-respondent No.1 in relation to a shop situated at Bhadra. Briefly put, the plaintiff has averred in the plaint (Annex.1) that the shop in question was taken on rent by the defendant No.1 about 28 years back for grocers business on a rent settled at Rs.458.34 payable monthly with reference to Hindi Miti. According to the plaintiff, with service of a notice, the tenancy stood terminated from the midnight of Badi 11 of 2nd Shravan Svt. 2061. The defendants have alleged in their written statement (Annex.2) that the suit shop was taken on rent by the defendant No.1 for his family business from the plaintiff alongwith plaintiff’s mother and brothers. The defendants have also alleged the tenancy being an yearly one that was initially at the rent of 2 Rs.3,450/- per annum and presently at Rs.5,500/- per annum. The defendants have denied valid service of notice terminating tenancy and have asserted that the relationship of landlord and tenant subsists between the parties. The defendants have also alleged that the plaintiff intentionally avoided to accept rent and closed the bank account wherein the rent was deposited earlier; and then the rent was sent by money order that was refused. It has also been averred that earlier a suit bearing No.26/1981 was filed and relying on the decision therein, it has been alleged that it being yearly tenancy, the alleged notice was not in conformity with law. The defendants have also taken other pleas including the one that earlier a suit was filed under the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 that was dismissed and the plaintiff is not entitled to maintain the present suit. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court has framed as many as 13 issues (Annex.3) and the matter was being proceeded in cross-examination of the plaintiff when the petitioners moved the application aforesaid on 02.11.2007 (Annex.7) seeking to produce three documents said to be (i) the reply sent by the plaintiff in response to a notice served by the defendant when the plaintiff was not accepting the rent (Annex.4); (ii) a copy of tax assessment record from the Municipal Board (Annex.5); and (iii) a copy of the order passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in 3 Criminal Misc. Petition No.14589/1990 on 06.08.1998 (Annex.6). The defendants submitted that the documents relate to the premises in question and clarify the position of the respective parties; that decision of the Hon'ble High Court remained with their lawyer at Jodhpur; that the plaintiff himself has admitted the notice having been replied; and that none of the documents could be said to be causing any surprise. The plaintiff submitted a reply (Annex.8) to the application and submitted that the documents in question were totally irrelevant and were not referred in the written statement; and that the application was filed after the plaintiff was subjected to lengthy cross-examination and without stating any reason for such inordinate delay only when cross-examination was on the verge of completion. The learned Trial Court has proceeded to reject the application by the impugned order dated 14.11.2007 (Annex.9) with the observations that the said documents could have been filed earlier; that no reason has been assigned for not filing the documents earlier; that the documents are not relevant for proving any issue; that this Court has directed the matter to be decided expeditiously; and that the application has been filed after lengthy cross-examination of the plaintiff. While learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged the order aforesaid as being a non-speaking one and submitted that the learned Trial Court has not considered that 4 the documents are directly relevant for determination of the questions involved in the case and has not considered that it would be in the interest of justice to permit the documents to be taken on record; learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has opposed with the submissions that the documents are entirely irrelevant and no worthy reason has been stated in the application as filed by the petitioners for belated production of the documents and the documents have not been referred even in the list of documents earlier filed. Learned counsel for respondent submitted in the alternative that if the documents are at all taken on record, the respondent deserves to be compensated by way of costs. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is unable to sustain the order as passed by the learned Trial Court in rejecting the application filed by the petitioners. It is true that the application seeking leave to produce the documents has been filed belatedly but then, it is nowhere borne out from the impugned order if the learned Trial Court has examined the contents of the documents with reference to the questions involved in the matter before declining the application. Even when this Court has directed for expeditious disposal of the matter, the requirement in that regard would be to proceed with reasonable dispatch and expediency curbing against unnecessary delay but not of denying the parties to the 5 litigation fullest opportunity of hearing. The rules of procedure are intended to sub-serve the cause of justice and are not intended for punishment of the parties for every default made by them during the course of proceedings. A generalised reference to delay and a cursory observation of the documents being not relevant for any issue, cannot be said to be in conformity with the requirement for the learned Trial Court to objectively consider the relevant questions before granting or declining leave to produce documents. The impugned order as passed by the learned Trial Court could only be said to be a non-speaking one and is, thus, required to be set aside. Though ordinarily, with setting aside of the impugned order, the matter would have been remitted for decision on the application afresh but having examined the documents in question with reference to other material on record, this Court is satisfied that the documents cannot be said to be totally irrelevant and it shall be in the fitness of things that the same are ordered to be taken on record so that the trial may proceed further. It appears that reply to the notice as sought to be produced on record has been sent by the plaintiff Om Prakash and it appears further that on the basis of this document, even a part of cross-examination has also been carried out. The decision of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, though relates to quashing of an FIR, but nexus of the present 6 litigation is indicated therein. The tax assessment order might also have bearing on questions involved in the suit including status of the parties. Though this Court is not pronouncing on the probative value of any of these documents but they cannot be dubbed as totally irrelevant; and deserve to be taken on record. Looking to the overall circumstances of this case, there does not appear any reason to allow costs to the plaintiff-respondent for delayed production of such documents. The prayer for allowing costs, in the circumstances of this case, stands rejected. As a result of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 14.11.2007 (Annex.9) is set aside and the documents in question are ordered to be taken on record. The learned Trial Court shall proceed further in accordance with law, of course keeping in view the order already made by this Court for expeditious trial and disposal of the suit. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. Parties shall bear their own costs of this petition. MK (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J.