IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 141 of 2008 Date of decision: 28.5.2008 Deepak Dhiman and others Petitioners. Versus Jagat Singh Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioners: Mr. Praneet Gupta, Advocate. For respondent: Nemo. Deepak Gupta, J. (oral) This petition is directed against the order of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sundernagar, whereby he has only partly allowed the application filed by the defendants for producing on record certain documents. It is not necessary to the give the detailed facts of the case. It would be sufficient to state that the respondent (here-in-after referred to as the plaintiff) filed a suit against the defendants for permanent prohibitory injunction. This suit was filed in the year 1997. The suit became ripe for hearing after 10 years and was fixed for 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. arguments on 4th October, 2007. Just two months prior to the date fixed for arguments, on 25th July, 2007 an application was filed by the defendants seeking permission to place on record 11 documents. No reason was given in this application as to why the documents had not been produced earlier. It was only alleged that due to inadvertent the same could not be filed earlier. The learned trial Court allowed the defendants to produce 7 out of 11 documents on the ground that these documents were per se admissible in evidence and did not require any witnesses to be examined to prove the same. In respect of four documents, i.e. F.I.R. No. 51/97 dated 22.2.1997, certified copy of letter dated 11.3.1997, copy of demarcation report dated 15th October, 1997, copy of letter dated 20.8.1972, the learned Court below held that the same required to be proved and in case the application is allowed it would virtually amount to re- opening of the trial and hence rejected the same. I have heard Shri Praneet Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, who has relied upon the judgement delivered by a learned Single Judge of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Sirugudi Adinarayana vs. Bodla Mariamma, 2005(1) Civil Court Cases 96 (A.P.) as well as the judgement of the apex Court in Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu vs. Union of India, AIR 2005, Supreme Court (3353). There can be no manner of doubt that in view of the judgement of the apex Court in Salem Advocate Bar Association the Court has the power to allow a party to produce the documents at any stage of the trial. It was in exercise of this power that the learned trial Court permitted the defendants to produce seven documents. However, the learned trial Court rejected the prayer in respect of those documents for which oral evidence had to be led to prove the same. It would be pertinent to mention that in the application filed for producing the documents no prayer was made that any of these documents are sought to be proved by leading oral evidence. The learned trial Court, in my opinion, rightly permitted the application only in respect of the documents which were per se admissible. Permitting the documents which cannot be exhibited in evidence without formal proof, to be placed on record, is meaningless. There was no prayer by the defendants that they be permitted to examine witnesses to prove the four documents. Who were the witnesses to be examined was also not mentioned. Therefore, allowing four documents to be placed on record would be meaningless. Furthermore, at the fag end of the trial, 10 years after the suit had been filed, it would not have been prudent to permit the defendants to virtually re-open the trial. Hence, there is no error in the order of the learned trial. I find no merit in the petition, which is therefore, dismissed in limine. 28th May, 2008 (Deepak Gupta), J. ™