- (1.) This revision is directed against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, First Class, Barnala, dated June 4, 1975, by which the application of the plaintiff petitioner for production of certified copies of the registration certificate and the balance sheet, was dismissed.
(2.) The plaintiff petitioner (hereinafter to be called the petitioner) is the Punjab and Sind Bank Limited. A suit was filed by the petitioner for the recovery of Rs. 73,714.42 against five defendants (now respondents) being its claim on equitable mortgage executed by respondent No. 2. In paragraph 1 of the plaint, it was averred that the petitioner is a body corporate and carries on banking business and has its registered had office at Hail Bazar, Amritsar. In the written statement, it was admitted that the petitioner was carrying on its business and had its registered office at Hall Bazar, Amritsar, but the factum regarding the petitioner being a corporate body was denied. In view of the pleadings of the parties, a number of issues were framed and issue No. 7 was as under :- "Whether the plaintiff Bank is a corporatte body and is entitled to sue - The evidence of the petitioner was plaintiff was closed on December 24, 1974 by order of the Court and the revision against that order was dismissed by the High Court in limine on January 24, 1975. The case in the trial court was fixed for evidence of the defendants when the petitioner made an application on May 3, 1975 under order 13 rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be called the code), for permission to produce certified copies of the registration certificate and the Balance sheet. The said application has been dismissed by the impugned order simply on the ground that the evidence of the petitioner was closed on December 24, 1974 and the revision against the said order had been dismissed by this Court and, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to produce even the certified copies of any document at the stage.
(3.) Mr. Kuldip Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that the documentary evidence could be produced by the petitioner at any time under Order 13 rule 2 of the Code, if "good cause" was shown to the satisfaction of the Court. The said rule is reproduced below :- "No documentary evidence in the possession or power of any party which should have been but has not been produced in accordance with the requirements of rule 1 shall be received at any subsequent stage of the proceedings unless good cause is shown to the satisfaction of the Court for the non-production thereof and the Court receiving any such evidence shall record the reasons for so doing." According to the learned counsel, the trial Court did not apply its mind to the said provision of law and committed a grave irregularity and even illegality in dismissing the application simply on the ground that the evidence of the petitioner had already been closed on December 24, 1974. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed on S. M. James and another v. Dr. Abdul Khair, 1961 AIR(Pat) 242, Ashoka Market Limited v. Rohtas Kumar and others,1960 AIR(Cal) 591 and Ram Sarup v. Sant Lal, 1972 AIR(P&H) 377. There is a considerable substance in this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The principle of law is well established by now that the rules of procedure should be liberally construed so as to advance the cause of justice and that the Court should not take rigid and hyper-technical view if certain documents about the authenticity and genuineness of which there is no doubt, but are not produced at the proper stage, as envisaged in rule 1 of Order 13 of the Code. In Ram Sarup's case Prem Chand Pandit, J., accepted the revision petition and quashed the order of the trial court refusing permission to produce registered sale deed in evidence in regard to the interpretation of procedural law, their lordships of the Supreme Court in The State of Punjab and another v. Shamlal Murari and another, 1976 1 SCC 719, held as follows :- "Procedural 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. Where the non-compliance, though procedural, with thwart fair hearing or prejudice doing of justice to parties, the rule is mandatory. But, grammer apart, if the breach can be correct without injury to a just disposal of the case, the Court should not enthrone a regulatory requirement into a dominant desideratum. After all, Courts are to do justice, not to wreck this and produce on technicalities. So even what is regarded as mandatory traditionally may, perhaps, have to be moderated into wholesome directions to be complied with in time or in extended time." From a perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that the trial court in refusing permission to produce the certified copies of the registration certificate and the balance sheet was carried away only by the one fact that the evidence of the petitioner had been closed by the Court earlier and did not apply its mind to the provisions of rule 2 of Order 13 of the Code. Consequently, no finding was given as to whether the petitioner had shown good cause" for the non-production of the documents, in question earlier. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the suit was filed on July 13, 1973, and the issue was framed on June 6, 1974. The petitioner did not produce those documents up to December 24, 1974, that is, the date when the evidence of the petitioner was closed by the order of the Court. An affidavit has been filed by one Roshan Lal Gupta, respondent No. 1 to show that the petitioner was in possession of the copy of the incorporation certificate on December 10, 1974, and therefore, the same could be produced before the evidence of the petitioner was closed. Under order 13 Rule 2 of the Code, the court has ample power to allow production of documentary evidence at any stage even if the same is not produced at the proper stage as envisaged under rule 1 order 13 of the Code. According to the settled law, rule 2 Order 13 of the Code, should be construed liberally and it should not be interpreted in a manner which stands in the way of fair trial and justice between the parties, on merits. In the present case, the documents are, undoubtedly, certified copies. There is absolutely no doubt about their genuineness The mere fact that there was some lapse on the part of the petitioner in not producing the said documents some time earlier could be given due consideration inasmuch as, some costs could be awarded to the opposite site. The petitioner was admitted by the respondent to be a limited Bank. Only a formal objection regarding its being a corporate body had been taken and thus an issue framed therefore. A perusal of the application submitted in this regard clearly shows that the petitioner had made clear averments stating the reasons for not producing those documents earlier. It is not from the order whether the respondents were given any opportunity to reply the said application, but in any case, no opportunity was given to the petitioner to prove the averments about the cause for non production of the documents even if the same had been objected to by the respondents. In view of these circumstances in my considered opinion, the trial court did not exercise its jurisdiction and committed a material irregularity in not applying its mind to the provisions of rule 2 Order 13 of the Code in refusing production of certified copies.;