CW-3930/04-Jhuma & Ors. Vs. Kamruddin & Ors. Judgment dt.20.10.09 1/2 S.B. CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO.3930/2004 Jhuma & Ors. Vs. Kamruddin & Ors. Date of order : 20th October, 2009 PRESENT HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr. Sanjeev Sharma for the petitioners. Mr. B.N. Kalla for the respondents. ------- 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 3.9.2004 whereby the defendant-petitioners' application under Order 8 Rule 1(3) read with Section 151 C.P.C. was rejected by the learned trial court in suit for permanent injunction filed by the respondent- plaintiffs. The petitioner-defendants sought to produce on record, during the course of his evidence, the patta relating to the disputed property in his favour and also a judgment of learned Municipal Court, Nagaur dated 5.6.1971 which could support his case during the trial. 2. The learned trial court has rejected the said application merely because the said documents were not produced along with the written statement nor it was in the list of witnesses and evidence filed in form No.3 and, therefore, without assigning any cogent reason the learned trial court rejected the said application of the defendant- petitioners. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiffs relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Mohd. Yunus Vs. CW-3930/04-Jhuma & Ors. Vs. Kamruddin & Ors. Judgment dt.20.10.09 2/2 Mohd. Mustaqim and ors. AIR 1984 SC 38 submitted that supervisory jurisdiction of High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked to correct the error of law. 4. Having heard learned counsels and upon going through the reasons given in the impugned order, this Court is of the considered opinion that there would be serious miscarriage of justice if the documents produced by the defendant-petitioner are not taken on record which could not be produced at the time of filing of written statement for bonafide reasons. It goes without saying that the patas produced by the petitioners will have to be proved by him accordance with law during the course of defendants' evidence which is going on in the learned trial court in the present suit. 5. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the application under Order 8 Rule 1(3) of C.P.C. of the defendant-petitioners deserves to be allowed. 6. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 3.9.2004 passed by the learned trial court is set aside and the application of the petitioner-defendants under Order 8 Rule 1(3) C.P.C. stands allowed. [ DR. VINEET KOTHARI ], J. item No.66 babulal/