1 Nobel International School & Anr. Vs. M/s Bhilwara Interiors. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 5851/10) Dated:- 06.7.10. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA Mr. P.R.Singh, for the petitioners. 1. This writ petition is directed against order dated 7.5.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge No.1, Bhilwara, in Civil Suit No. 23/08 whereby an application preferred by the petitioner/defendant under Order VIII Rule 1,2 & 3 r/w Section 151 CPC has been rejected. 2. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of sum of Rs. 4,54,000/- which is being contested by the petitioners/defendants by filing a written statement thereto. The evidence of the respondent/plaintiff already stands concluded and the matter is posted for defendant's evidence. 3. The petitioners/defendants failed to produce the evidence despite several opportunities being granted and therefore, vide order dated 13.3.2008, the Court directed that if the defendants fail to produce the evidence on the next date, their evidence shall stand closed. 4. On the next date, the petitioners/defendants sought adjournment and thereafter an application was moved as 2 aforesaid for taking a document dated 8.1.2003 alleged to have been executed by Shri Prakash Ghiya on behalf of the respondent firm, on record. 5. After due consideration, the trial court found that there is no averments in the plaint regarding the facts sought to be proved by producing the document in question. The explanation submitted by the petitioners for delayed production of the document was not found plausible by the trial court. Accordingly, the Court arrived at the finding that the application preferred by the petitioners lacks bonafide and it appears to have been filed to delay the proceedings of the suit. Accordingly, the application preferred has been rejected by the order impugned. Hence this petition. 6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the document sought to be produced by the petitioners/defendants is absolutely necessary for adjudication of the dispute involved in the suit and therefore, the trial court has seriously erred in rejecting the application preferred on the ground that the document produced belatedly cannot be taken on record. Learned counsel submitted that the trial court has also erred in holding that there is no pleading on behalf of the petitioners/defendants in respect of the document produced and therefore, the petitioners/defendants cannot be permitted to adduce the evidence regarding the facts which are not pleaded. 3 Accordingly, it is submitted by the learned counsel that the order impugned passed by the trial court is contrary to law and deserves to be set aside. 7. A perusal of the plaint reveals that it contains no pleading with regard to the facts sought to be proved by producing the document in question. The stand of the petitioner before the trial court was that the document could not be produced earlier inasmuch as the same was lying in the file kept at Jodhpur Branch of the petitioner, but there is no explanation whatsoever as to what efforts were made by the petitioner to trace the document if it was at all relevant, at the time of filing of the written statement. The explanation submitted by the petitioner regarding the delay in filing the document is also absolutely vague and not plausible. 8. It is settled law that the rule of procedure are hand maiden of justice and the cause of justice cannot be permitted to be defeated on account of failure to observe the procedure laid down strictly. But then, the provision requiring filing of the documents so also the list of the documents on which the defendant relies upon but the same are not in his possession at the time of filing of the written statement has been incorporated by the legislature in its wisdom to avoid the unnecessary delay in adjudication of the lis between the parties. Therefore, the defendant who wants to produce the document at the later stage 4 must satisfy the court that the documents sought to be produced could not be produced at the appropriate stage on account of the fact that the same were not in his possession or he had no knowledge about the existence of the same. That apart, he must satisfy the court as to the relevancy of the documents sought to be produced at the belated stage for adjudication of the dispute involved between the parties. Suffice it to say that the defendant cannot claim filing of the documents at belated stage as a matter of right, without furnishing the satisfactory explanation regarding non production of the documents at the appropriate stage. Further, it is not the law that the relevancy of the document cannot at all be looked into by the trial court while deciding the application preferred for taking the documents on record. The Court can always examine all these aspects of the matter so as to ascertain the bona fides of the party making the application. 9. On the facts and in the circumstances of the instant case, this Court is of considered opinion that in absence of the pleading regarding the facts sought to be proved by producing the document in question and in absence of plausible explanation for the delay in producing the document, the learned trial court has committed no error in rejecting the application for the reasons recorded. The order impugned passed by the learned trial court do not suffer from any jurisdictional error 5 warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (SANGEET LODHA),J. rp/-