IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4835 of 2001 (O&M) Date of decision: 05.08.2009 State of Punjab ....Petitioner versus R.K.Gupta ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Ms. Monica Chhibbar Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the petitioner. None for the respondent. --- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? Yes. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? Yes. K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The revision is against the dismissal of an appeal filed at the District Court, Bathinda, against an order passed by the trial Court refusing permission to the defendant to file document which was not produced, inspite of notice and drawing an adverse inference against the defendant. Such an order which was passed by the trial Court on reception of a document was not appealable under any of the provisions of Order 43 Rule 1 CPC and therefore, the order of the Appellate Court dismissing the appeal as not maintainable was perfectly justified. The revision challenging the order of the Appellate Court is, therefore, equally untenable. 2. The learned counsel would still contend, making reliance on the judgment of this Court in State of Punjab Versus Jagtar Singh-1996 Civil Revision No.4835 of 2001 - 2- (1) Civil Court Cases 24 (P&H), that if a party fails to comply with the order to answer interrogatories, or for discovery or for inspection of documents, an order striking off the defence or dismissing a suit could be passed only on an application made by the other party and could not be done suo moto. I failed to understand as to how there is any relevance to this case. It is not a case where the defence has been struck off or plaintiff had been granted a decree. If a document is not produced along with the written statement or within the time allowed by law, the permission of the Court is always necessary before the document could be adduced in evidence. 3. However, the trial Court that passed the order stating that the defendant was restrained from producing the document and that adverse inference shall be drawn was perhaps unjustified. The discretion given to the Court for admission of document shall always be exercised in such a way that there is no relevant document to be shut out of consideration for trial. Even while finding that the order of the Appellate Court rejecting the appeal to be perfectly justified, I invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction available in this Court to do complete justice to parties in a given case where it is shown that the trial Court had shut off evidence even without considering the reasons as to why the document could not be produced or how any serious prejudice could be caused to the plaintiff by the attempted delayed production of the document. The best recompense for delay in filing the documents would be to award appropriate cost and not completely deny the admission of the documentary evidence. Civil Revision No.4835 of 2001 - 3 - 4. The defendant shall be at liberty to move an appropriate application for reception of documents along with an affidavit setting out such reasons for its non-production earlier and the trial Court shall consider the same afresh and pass appropriate orders and proceed with the trial. The revision petition is disposed of in the above terms. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 05.08.2009 sanjeev