CR No.2495 of 2011 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.2495 of 2011 (O&M). Decided on: April 18, 2011. Ramesh Kumar and another. .. Petitioners VERSUS Harish Gulati. .. Respondent * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporter? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? * * * PRESENT Mr.S.N.Saini, Advocate, for the petitioners. M.M.S. BEDI, J. Vide impugned order dated 26.03.2011, the Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Ambala, has allowed an application filed by the plaintiff-respondent permitting the production of six documents on the ground that the said documents are necessary for the proper adjudication of the suit despite the fact that there has been a delay . . . 1 CR No.2495 of 2011 (O&M) on the part of the respondent for not producing the said documents at the time of leading his evidence in affirmative. Counsel for the defendants-petitioners has vehemently contended that the suit was filed by the plaintiff- respondent in the year 2000 and 14 opportunities had been granted to produce the evidence in affirmative but the plaintiff-respondent having not been able to conclude his entire evidence, the evidence was closed by order in the year 2009. The case is now at rebuttal evidence stage and the plaintiff-respondent has not given any reason for not producing the said documents. I have heard the counsel for the defendants- petitioners and taken into consideration the controversy between the parties. The plaintiff-respondent appears to have filed a suit for dissolution and rendition of account claiming that M/s Gupta Brick Industries, was manufacturing the bricks in which he had been a partner by virtue of partnership deed dated 20.10.1994. The plaintiff claims himself to be partner to the extent of 50 per cent while defendant-petitioner No.1, was partner to the extent of 10 per cent and defendant-petitioner No.2, was partner to the extent of 40 per cent. The petitioners had allegedly sold all the stocks of the partnership concern and kept the sale proceeds. The defendants-petitioners, in their written statement, have claimed that the controversy stands already dissolved and that all the account books are with the plaintiff- . . . 2 CR No.2495 of 2011 (O&M) respondent. The plaintiff-respondent in his application for production of documents, has claimed that the documents would prove that the Brick Kiln Licence was granted to the partnership concern of the partners who were parties to the case and the said documents would remove the ambiguity whether the Brick Kiln Licence was granted to the partnership firm or was granted to petitioner No.1 (defendants alone). No doubt, the provisions of order 18 Rule 17-A CPC, no more exist in the statute book but if a document is absolutely necessary for the just decision of the final adjudication of the controversy between the parties, the same can always be permitted, by a Court in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, to be proved on record, at any stage, in the interest of justice. No doubt, sometimes permitting a party at a belated stage to produce documents may cause inconvenience to the other party besides causing delay but in case a document is required to be taken on record taking into consideration the interests of justice, the same can be allowed. The letter dated 30.11.1994, addressed to the District Food and Supply Controller, Ambala, the Partnership Deed dated 20.10.1994, duly attested by DFSC, affidavit of three partners and the other letters addressed to plaintiff by the Administrative Authorities, which have been permitted to be proved are not such documents which could be said to have been procured or fabricated subsequently. No doubt, the plaintiff-respondent had been adopting a casual approach but the delay in production of the documents would only cause prejudice to the plaintiff-respondent himself for . . . 3 CR No.2495 of 2011 (O&M) having not produced these documents. In the exercise of discretion, the trial Court has arrived at a conclusion that the said documents are relevant for the just adjudication of the matter. I am of the considered opinion that no interference is warranted in the objective satisfaction arrived at by the trial Court. No ground is made out for interference in the discretion exercised by the trial Court. The present revision petition is, thus, dismissed. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE April 18, 2011. rka . . . 4