Himachal Pradesh High Court
____________________________________________________ vs Udey Parkash (Deceased) Through Lrs on 17 April, 2026
( 2026:HHC:12212 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CMPMO No. 735 of 2025
Reserved on : 31.03.2026
.
Date of Decision: 17.04.2026
____________________________________________________
Naresh Bala ...Petitioner.
Versus
Udey Parkash (deceased) through LRs ...Respondents.
of
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes
For the petitioner: rt Mr. Suneet Goel, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Vishwas Kaushal, Advocate.
For the respondents: Ms. Devyani Sharma, Senior
Advocate with Ms. Srishti Negi,
Advocate, for respondents No.1 (a)
to 1(c).
Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocate, for
respondent No.2.
__________________________________________________
Romesh Verma, Judge
The present petition arises out of the order dated 12.11.2025, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P., whereby, an application filed by the defendant/applicant under the provision of Order 8 Rule 1 (A) (3) of CPC has been allowed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/ plaintiff filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2026 20:30:14 :::CIS2 ( 2026:HHC:12212 ) one Sh. Udey Prakash and Smt. Padmini Devi before the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Nahan, Distt. Sirmaur, .
H.P.
3. As per the averments as made in the plaint, it has been averred that the defendants are successors and rulers of the Sirmaur estate who have got the exclusive of ownership of Khasra No. 71, 72, 73, 75 alongwith other Khasra numbers vide partition mutation No. 6 rt dated 13.12.2014 duly entered in the Jamabandi for the year 2012- 2013. They are not residents of the State of H.P. and have no interest in the suit land, knowing fully that the suit land is in the exclusive possession of the plaintiff on the spot. It is further averred that the defendants, on 14.10.2016, brought JCB machines and dispossessed the plaintiff, and started leveling and cutting the suit land illegally. The defendants also destroyed the orchard of the plaintiff and removed building material lying nearby the suit land. When the defendants were confronted and requested to stop interfering with the suit land, they refused to do so and openly asserted that they had dispossessed the plaintiff from the suit land. Therefore, a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2026 20:30:14 :::CIS 3 ( 2026:HHC:12212 ) defendants from causing interference over the suit land was sought by the present plaintiff.
.
4. The suit was contested by the defendants by raising preliminary objections with regard to the maintainability, under valuation, bonafide etc. On merits, the allegations as leveled in the plaint were refuted and it was denied that the of defendants are not in possession or has no interest on the suit land. It was specifically denied rt that the plaintiff is in possession over the suit land. The defendant No.1 is in possession and in complete control of the property and is in the process of developing the property. It was denied that defendants dispossessed the plaintiff, started the work of leveling the land and destroyed any orchard over the suit land.
The defendants denied all the allegations as levelled in the plaint and sought dismissal of the suit filed by the plaintiff.
5. The plaintiff filed replication and reiterated the averments as made in the plaint. It would be pertinent to mention here that the Civil Suit was filed on 17.10.2016 and the written statement was filed by the defendants on 08.02.2017. The learned trial Court framed issues on 17.4.2017. It is an admitted fact between the parties that ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2026 20:30:14 :::CIS 4 ( 2026:HHC:12212 ) along with the suit an application Under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC was filed and the said application was dismissed initially .
by the learned trial Court, however, in the appeal, the First Appellate Court set aside the said order and the appeal filed by the plaintiff was accepted. Against the judgment as passed by the First Appellate Court, CMPMO No.449 of 2018 is still of pending in the proceedings under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC.
6. The record of the suit was summoned by this rt Court in said CMPMO No.449 of 2018 vide its order dated 09th of September 2019. The said case was listed for consideration before this Court on 15.05.2025 and vide its order, the records of the learned Trial Court were sent back to the same Court.
7. The defendants/respondents filed an application under order 8 Rule 1 (A) (3) of CPC for producing the documents on 11th of September 2025. It was averred in the application that since the proceedings were kept in abeyance and records of the case file was before this Court and recently, the records were sent back by this Court, the defendants, on account of new developments, intend to place on record certain documents such as water consumption bills, electricity ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2026 20:30:14 :::CIS 5 ( 2026:HHC:12212 ) consumption bills, copy of mutation, agreement, photographs, and approval for running of BMB.
.
8. It was averred in the application that the defendants are in complete control and possession of the property comprised in the suit land. After remitting back of the case record by the Court on 15.05.2025, new of developments have taken place, which has necessitated to lead evidence in view of the changed circumstances. It was rt averred that the property in suit is being owned and possessed by late Sh. Udey Prakash and after his death by the defendants.
9. The documents could not be produced earlier and that there is no negligence or inaction on the part of the respondents/defendants as the existence of such documents cannot be manufactured or disputed. The said application was filed by the defendants on 11.09.2025 immediately after the remittance of the case record on 15.05.2025.
10. The petitioner/plaintiff filed reply to the said application and denied all the averments as made in the application. It was stated that the application is highly belated and the documents intended to be placed on record are ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2026 20:30:14 :::CIS 6 ( 2026:HHC:12212 ) neither material nor relevant for determination and adjudication of the case in hand. Further, it has been averred in the reply .
that the documents have been prepared falsely in connivance with the persons having acquaintance with the defendants and said documents are neither necessary nor required by the Court for any purpose.
of
11. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Nahan, Distt.
Sirmaur, H.P. vide its order dated 12.11.2025 allowed the rt application filed by the defendants subject to payment of cost of Rs.2000/- to be paid to the plaintiff/petitioner by the defendants/respondents.
12. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has approached this Court by filing the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
13. It is contended by Sh. Suneet Goel learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sh. Vivek Negi that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the application which was filed by the defendants/respondents is highly belated and the defendants/respondents have failed to demonstrate that as to how the documents filed along with the application under Order 8 Rule 1 (A) (3) of CPC are relevant ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2026 20:30:14 :::CIS 7 ( 2026:HHC:12212 ) for the adjudication of the case in hand. He prayed for the acceptance of the present petition and dismissal of the .
application filed by defendants/respondents.
14. On the other hand, Ms. Devyani Sharma, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Shristhi Negi, Advocate for respondent No. 1(a) to 1(c) and Mr. Surinder Saklani, of Advocate, for respondent No.2 have defended the impugned order. It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the rt defendants that the learned trial Court has rightly passed the impugned order and there is no delay in filing the application.
Even otherwise, the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 (A) (3) of CPC provides an opportunity to the defendants to produce the documents that should have been produced with the written statement. She further submits that the procedure is handmade of the justice and if the procedural violation has not caused serious prejudice to the opposite party, the Court should accept the relevant documents by taking a lenient view.
She has contended that no interference that too in the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is permissible in the present case.
15. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2026 20:30:14 :::CIS8 ( 2026:HHC:12212 )
16. The case as projected by the plaintiff/petitioner before this Court is that the application, which has been filed .
by the defendant under the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 (A) (3) of CPC is highly belated and the documents, which have been filed with the said application are not relevant in any manner for the adjudication of the present claim.
of
17. The provisions of Order 8 Rule 1-A, sub-rule 3 reads as under:- rt "3. That the above said order came in existence during the pendency of suit and is material document and is pertaining to the suit land and is helpful in adjudication of this present case and is required to be received in evidence. Hence this application to receive the said documents in evidence of the defendant. The applicant has also applied for the certified copy of aforesaid order which has not been received so far. Hence, this application for the leave of this Hon'ble Court to receive these documents in evidence of the deft."
18. The proposition of law that the rules of procedure are handmaid of justice and cannot take away the residuary powers of judges ex debito justitiae, where otherwise it would be wholly unjust, is well founded. It must be remembered that courts are respected not on account of their power to legalise injustice on technical grounds, but because they are capable of removing injustice and are expected to do so. Further, ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2026 20:30:14 :::CIS 9 ( 2026:HHC:12212 ) taking into consideration the fact that substantial justice and technical considerations are opposed to each other, the cause .
of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, as the other side cannot be said to have a vested right in injustice being done.
19. All the rules of procedure are the handmaid of of justice. The language employed by the draftsman of procedural law may be liberal or stringent, but the fact remains rt that the object of prescribing procedure is to advance the cause of justice. In an adversarial system, no party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the process of justice dispensation. Unless compelled by express and specific language of the statute, the provisions of the CPC or any other procedural enactment ought not to be construed in a manner that could leave the court helpless in extraordinary situations in the ends of justice.
20. Every trial is a voyage of discovery in which truth is quest. Truth alone has to be the foundation of justice. The entire judicial system has been created only to disarm and find out the real truth.
::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2026 20:30:14 :::CIS10 ( 2026:HHC:12212 )
21. Admittedly, the written statement was filed by the defendants on 08.02.2017. The learned trial Court framed .
issues on 17.04.2017 and it is an admitted fact between the parties that in the proceedings under the provisions of Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC, application for injunction filed by the plaintiff was earlier dismissed, however, the said order was of reversed by the First Appellate Court in appeal and against the said findings as returned by the first Appellate Court in rt CMPMO No.449 of 2018 is pending before this Court.
22. This Court vide its order dated 09.09.2018 called for the records and thereafter, there was no occasion on the part of the defendants to have filed any such application. It is only when this Court remitted back the records on 15.05.2025 that immediately, the present application has been filed on 11.09.2025. Therefore, under no stretch of imagination, it can be inferred that the present application is highly belated.
23. It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the documents should have been filed by the defendants immediately along with written statement which was filed in 2017.
::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2026 20:30:14 :::CIS11 ( 2026:HHC:12212 )
24. As observed earlier, the rules of procedure are handmaid of justice. The procedure is only handmaid of justice .
i.e. all the rules of procedure are the handmade of justice.
25. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the documents which are intended to be filed along with the application under Order 8 Rule 1 (A) (3) of CPC of do not disclose that how these documents are relevant for the adjudication of the present case.
rt
26. To his submission, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents has argued that since in the present case, civil suit for permanent prohibitory injunction has been filed by the plaintiff/ petitioner and the point for determination before the learned trial Court is that who is in possession of the suit property and in that regard issue No.1 "whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of permanent prohibitory injunction ?", is required to be adjudicated and in order to prove the possession, the defendants intend to place on record the documents hereinabove. The documents, which have been filed along with the application are yet to be proved in accordance with the law, therefore, by no stretch of ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2026 20:30:14 :::CIS 12 ( 2026:HHC:12212 ) imagination, it can be inferred that any rights of the plaintiff have been infringed.
.
27. By means of the impugned order, the aforesaid documents filed with the application under Order 8 Rule 1 (A) (3) of CPC have been ordered to be taken on record and now those documents are required to be proved in accordance with of the law and the other side, the petitioner/plaintiff shall get the right to controvert the said documents in cross-examination by rt leading evidence. This Court has been informed by the learned counsel for the parties that the application was filed at the stage when the evidence of the defendants was yet to start and now as of today, the evidence of the defendants has started. Therefore, it cannot be presumed and held that the application has been filed at the fag end of the trial.
28. The learned trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that merely production of the documents is not going to be proved the same as the present respondents/ defendants have to prove the said documents by leading evidence on record. The learned trial Court has rightly allowed the application by taking into consideration the material aspect on record.
::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2026 20:30:14 :::CIS13 ( 2026:HHC:12212 )
29. The Hon'ble Apex Court while in the matter of Sugandhi (dead) by Legal Representatives and another vs. .
P. Raj Kumar represented by his Power Agent Imam OLI, 2020 (10) SCC 706 dealing with the provisions under Order 8 Rule 1 (A) (3) CPC The relevant paras of the same are as under:
of "6. Rule 1A of Order 8 of C.P.C. provides the procedure for production of documents by the defendant which is as under:
rt "1A. Duty of defendant to produce documents upon which relief is claimed or relied upon by him.-- (1) Where the defendant bases his defence upon a document or relies upon any document in his possession or power, in support of his defence or claim for setoff or counterclaim, he shall enter such document in a list, and shall produce it in Court when the written statement is presented by him and shall, at the same time, deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the written statement.
(2) Where any such document is not in the possession or power of the defendant, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose possession or power it is.
(3) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the defendant under this rule, but, is not so produced shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit. (4) Nothing in this rule shall apply to document
--
(a) produced for the crossexamination of the plaintiff's witnesses, or ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2026 20:30:14 :::CIS 14 ( 2026:HHC:12212 )
(b) handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory."
7. Subrule (1) mandates the defendant to .
produce the documents in his possession before the court and file the same along with his written statement. He must list out the documents which are in his possession or power as well as those which are not. In case the defendant does not file any document or copy thereof along with his written statement, such a document shall not be allowed to be of received in evidence on behalf of the defendant at the hearing of the suit. However, this will not apply to a document produced for cross examination of the plaintiff's witnesses or handed over to a witness merely to refresh rt his memory. Subrule (3) states that a document which is not produced at the time of filing of the written statement, shall not be received in evidence except with the leave of the court.
Rule (1) of Order 13 of C.P.C. again makes it mandatory for the parties to produce their original documents before settlement of issues.
8. Subrule (3), as quoted above, provides a second opportunity to the defendant to produce the documents which ought to have been produced in the court along with the written statement, with the leave of the court.
The discretion conferred upon the court to grant such leave is to be exercised judiciously. While there is no straight jacket formula, this leave can be granted by the court on a good cause being shown by the defendant.
9. It is often said that procedure is the handmaid of justice. Procedural and technical hurdles shall not be allowed to come in the way of the court while doing substantial justice. If the procedural violation does not seriously cause prejudice to the adversary party, courts must lean towards doing substantial justice rather than relying upon procedural and ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2026 20:30:14 :::CIS 15 ( 2026:HHC:12212 ) technical violation. We should not forget the fact that litigation is nothing but a journey towards truth which is the foundation of justice and the court is required to take appropriate .
steps to thrash out the underlying truth in every dispute. Therefore, the court should take a lenient view when an application is made for production of the documents under subrule (3)."
of
30. The similar view has been taken by this Hon'ble High Court in CMPMO No. 91 of 2016, Shakti Swaroop vs rt Kumari Narinder Lata and another in the following manner:-
"11. Processual law is not to be a tyrant but a servant, not an obstruction but an aid to justice. Procedural prescriptions are the handmaid and not the mistress, a lubricant, not a resistant in the administration of justice.
12. It is useful to quote the oft-quoted passage of Lord Penzance in 1879 (4) AC 504:
"Procedure is but the machinery of the law after all the channel and means whereby law is administered and justice reached. It strongly departs from its office when in place of facilitating, it is permitted to obstruct and even extinguish legal rights, and is thus made to govern when it ought to subserve."
13. In the matter of Sangram Singh vs. Election Tribunal, Kotah reported in AIR 1955, S.C. 425, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:
::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2026 20:30:14 :::CIS16 ( 2026:HHC:12212 ) "Now a code of procedure must be regarded as such. It is procedure, something designed to facilitate justice and further its ends, not a .
penal enactment for punishment and penalties; not a thing designed to trip people up. Too technical a construction of sections that leaves no room for reasonable elasticity of interpretation should therefore be guarded against (provide always of that justice is done to both sides) less the very means designed for the furtherance of justice be used to frustrate it."
rt "Next, there must be ever present to the mind the fact that our laws of procedure are grounded on a principle of natural justice which requires that men should not be condemned unheard, that decisions should not be reached behind their backs, that proceedings that affect their lives and property should not continue in their absence and that they should not be precluded from participating in them. Of course there must be expectations and where they are clearly defined they must be given effect to. But taken by and large, and subject to that proviso our laws of procedure should be construed, wherever that is reasonably possible in the light of that principle."
14. No person has a vested right in any course of procedure. He has only the right of prosecution or defence in the manner for the time being by or for the Court in which the case is pending, and if, by an Act of ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2026 20:30:14 :::CIS 17 ( 2026:HHC:12212 ) Parliament the mode of procedure is altered, he has no other right than to proceed according to the altered mode. (See: Blyth v. Blyth (1966 (1) All E.R. 524 .
(HL).
15. In Balwant Singh Bhagwan Singh and another vs. Firm Raj Singh Baldev Kishen reported in AIR 1969 Punjab and Haryana 197 it was held that:
of "Promptitude and despatch in the dispensation of justice is a desirable thing but not at the cost of justice. All rules of procedure are nothing but rt handmaids of justice. They cannot be construed in a manner, which would hamper justice. As a general rule, evidence should never be shut out. The fullest opportunity should always be given to the parties to give evidence if the justice of the case requires it. It is immaterial if the original omission to give evidence or to deposit process fee arises from negligence or carelessness."
16. In the matter of State of Gujarat vs. Ramprakash P. Puri, reported in 1970 (2) SCR 875, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that:
"Procedure has been described to be a hand-maid and not a mistress of law, intended to subserve and facilitate the cause of justice and not to govern or obstruct it. Like all rules of procedure, this rule demands a construction which would promote this cause."
17. The processual law so dominates in certain systems as to overpower ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2026 20:30:14 :::CIS 18 ( 2026:HHC:12212 ) substantive rights and substantial justice. The humanist rule that procedure should be the handmaid, not the mistress, of legal justice compels consideration of vesting a .
residuary power in judges to act ex debito justiciae where the tragic sequel otherwise would be wholly inequitable. - Justice is the goal of jurisprudence-processual, as much as substantive. (See Sushil Kumar Sen v. State of Bihar (1975) 1 SCC 774).
of
18. A procedural law should not ordinarily be construed as mandatory, the procedural law is always subservient to and is in aid to justice. Any interpretation which eludes or rt frustrates the recipient of justice is not to be followed. (See Shreenath and Another vs. Rajesh and others AIR 1998 SC 1827).
19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2007) 9 Scale 202 (R.N. Jadi & Brothers vs. Subhash Chandra), considered the procedural law vis-à-vis substantive law and observed as under:
"9. All the rules of procedure are the handmaid of justice. The language employed by the draftsman of processual law may be liberal or stringent, but the fact remains that the object of prescribing procedure is to advance the cause of justice. In an adversarial system, no party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the process of justice dispensation. Unless compelled by express and specific language of the statute, the provisions of CPC or any other procedural enactment ought not to be construed in a manner which would leave the court helpless to ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2026 20:30:14 :::CIS 19 ( 2026:HHC:12212 ) meet extraordinary situations in the ends of justice."
20. Procedure is only handmaid of Justice:-
.
All the rules of procedure are the handmaids of justice. Any interpretation which eludes substantive justice is not to be followed. Observing that procedure law is not to be a tyrant, but a servant, in Sambhaji and others vs. Gangabai and others (2008) 17 SCC 117, the Hon'ble of Supreme Court held as under:
"6.(14) Processual law is not to be a tyrant but a servant, not an rt obstruction but an aid to justice. Procedural prescription is the handmaid and not the mistress, a lubricant, not a resistant in the administration of justice."
21. In 2011 (1) Scale 469 Rajendra Prasad Gupta vs. Prakash Chandra Mishra and others, the issue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was as to whether an application will be maintainable before the trial Court to withdraw the application filed earlier for withdrawal of the suit. The trial Court dismissed the application as not maintainable. The High Court held that once the application for withdrawal of the suit is filed the suit stands dismissed as withdrawn even without there being any order on the withdrawal application and as such another application at a later point of time to withdraw the suit was not maintainable. When the matter was taken up in appeal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court disagreed with the views expressed by the High Court. While allowing the appeal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed thus: "5. Rules of procedure are handmaids of ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2026 20:30:14 :::CIS 20 ( 2026:HHC:12212 ) justice. Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure gives inherent powers to the court to do justice. That provision has to be interpreted to mean that every procedure is .
permitted to the court for doing justice unless expressly prohibited, and not that every procedure is prohibited unless expressly permitted."
31. The said view has been reiterated by this Court of in Civil Revision No.189 of 2025 Krishna Devi and others vs Pari Dutt and another, relevant para of the same are as under:-
rt "8. In the aforesaid backdrop, the Trial Court subject to payment of costs allowed the placing on record the documents. The costs were imposed on account of lack of diligence shown by the present respondents/ defendants in placing on record the documents at an appropriate stage.
9. Other than the aforesaid, the Trial Court was of the view that the documents sought to be placed on record are required to be proved.
Due opportunity would be given to the petitioner/plaintiff to cross-examine the witnesses so produced by the present respondents for proving the two documents, hence, no prejudice shall be caused to the present petitioner/plaintiff by belated production of the documents in the present case. Thereafter, the matter has been now posted for recording of evidence of the respondents/defendants."
32. Lastly, this Court in Civil Suit No. 10 of 2021, titled as Mahesh Edible Oil Industries vs. H.P.State Civil ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2026 20:30:14 :::CIS 21 ( 2026:HHC:12212 ) Supplies Corporation Ltd., while dealing with the provisions under Order 8 Rule 1 (A) (3) CPC has held as follows:-
.
9. It is apparent from the perusal of the contents of the plaint that the agreement between the parties, the report of the analysis, the recommendation of the Committee, the notice served upon the applicant/defendant and the reply sent to the notice are the material documents to determine whether the applicant/defendant had acted as per the of contract or contrary to it. Hence, the relevance of the document is prima facie established at this stage.
rt
10. It was submitted that there is a delay in filing the application. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sugandhi (supra) that Order 8 Rule 1-A (3) provides the second opportunity for the defendant to produce the documents that should have been produced with the written statement. The procedure is a handmaid of justice and if the procedural violation does not cause serious prejudice to the adversary party, the Court should accept the relevant documents by taking a lenient view. It was observed:
"6. Rule 1-A of Order 8 CPC provides the procedure for the production of documents by the defendant which is as under:
"1-A. Duty of the defendant to produce documents upon which relief is claimed or relied upon by him.--
(1) Where the defendant bases his defence upon a document or relies upon any document in his possession or power, in support of his defence or claim for set-off or counterclaim, he shall enter such document in a list, and shall produce it in court when the written statement is presented by him and shall, at the same time, deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the written statement.::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2026 20:30:14 :::CIS
22 ( 2026:HHC:12212 ) (2) Where any such document is not in the possession or power of the defendant, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose possession or power it is.
.
(3) A document which ought to be produced in court by the defendant under this Rule, but, is not so produced shall not, without the leave of the court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit.
(4) Nothing in this Rule shall apply to documents
--
of
(a) produced for the cross-
examination of the plaintiff's
witnesses, or
rt
(b) handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory."
7. Sub-rule (1) mandates the defendant to produce the documents in his possession before the court and file the same along with his written statement. He must list out the documents which are in his possession or power as well as those which are not. In case the defendant does not file any document or copy thereof along with his written statement, such a document shall not be allowed to be received in evidence on behalf of the defendant at the hearing of the suit.
However, this will not apply to a document produced for cross-examination of the plaintiff's witnesses or handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory. Sub-rule (3) states that a document which is not produced at the time of filing of the written statement, shall not be received in evidence except with the leave of the court. Rule 1(1) of Order 13 CPC again makes it mandatory for the parties to produce their original documents before settlement of issues.
8. Sub-rule (3), as quoted above, provides a second opportunity to the defendant to produce the documents which ought to have been produced in the court along with the written statement, with the leave of the court. The discretion conferred upon the court to grant such ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2026 20:30:14 :::CIS 23 ( 2026:HHC:12212 ) leave is to be exercised judiciously. While there is no straitjacket formula, this leave can be granted by the court on a good cause being shown by the defendant.
.
9. It is often said that procedure is the handmaid of justice. Procedural and technical hurdles shall not be allowed to come in the way of the court while doing substantial justice. If the procedural violation does not seriously cause prejudice to the adversary party, courts must lean towards doing substantial justice rather than relying upon of procedural and technical violation. We should not forget the fact that litigation is nothing but a journey towards truth which is the foundation of justice and the court is required to take appropriate steps to thrash out the underlying rt truth in every dispute. Therefore, the court should take a lenient view when an application is made for the production of the documents under sub-rule (3).
14. It was submitted that there is a delay in filing the documents and the production of the documents should not be allowed due to the delay. This cannot be accepted. The delay can always be compensated in terms of the money and is not sufficient to reject the application."
33. In view of the exposition of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court, whereby it has been laid down that procedural and technical hurdles shall not be allowed to come in the way of the Court while doing substantial justice. Therefore, the Courts must lean towards doing substantial justice rather than relying upon the procedural and technical violation. Therefore, the Court should take a lenient view, when the application is made for ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2026 20:30:14 :::CIS 24 ( 2026:HHC:12212 ) production of documents under Order 8 Rule 1 (A) (3) of CPC.
.
34. This Court is of the opinion that there is no jurisdictional error by the learned trial court and has rightly allowed the present application under Order 8 Rule 1 (A) (3) of CPC but in the opinion of this Court to maintain balance of between the parties the cost as imposed is required to be enhanced from Rs.2000/- to Rs.25000/-.
rt
35. Consequently, the present petition being devoid of any merit deserves to be dismissed with the further direction that respondent shall pay cost of Rs.25000/- to the petitioners on the next date of hearing before the learned trial Court.
36. In view of the above, the present petition stands dismissed, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.
(Romesh Verma) Judge April 17, 2026 (Nisha) ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2026 20:30:14 :::CIS