ISRANI, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed with a prayer that order dated July 6, 1990 (Anx. l), passed by the learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, (Election Tribunal), Karauli, may be quashed and the petitioner's application for filing documents may be allowed.
(2.) THE petitioner has filed an election petition under Rule 78 of the Rajasthan Panchayat & Nyaya Panchayat (Election) Rules, 1960 (for brevity, 'the Rules, 1960'), against respondent No. 2, which is pending in the Court of the learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate (Election Tribunal), Karauli. Election for the Office of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Gairiee was held on June 5, 1988. THE petitioner and respondent No. 2 both contested the same. In all, 2090 votes were cast, out of which, the petitioner got 379 and respondent No. 2 received 380 votes. 159 votes were cancelled. Thus, the non-petitioner No. 2 was declared elected by a margin of one vote. It is submitted by Mr. S. K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, that, in the election petition it has been specifically stated that the Returning Officer, with intention to favour respondent No. 2, allowed certain votes to be cast illegally, on account of which, the result of the election was materially and substantially effected. It is further submitted that the petitioner has examined one Ghanshyam and Girraj Prasad as witnesses, who were on official duty during the election at Surwal and Padhana. However, respondent No. 2 got their votes cast in his favour. An application supported by affidavit was filed on behalf of the petitioner before the Election Tribunal under Order XIII, r. 2, C. P. C. praying that certified copies of duty orders of Ghanshyam & Girraj issued by the Collector may be taken on record. These duty orders are issued under Rules 14 and 22 of the Rules, 1960 (Amended ). However, this application was rejected on the ground that it has been filed late when the trial is almost complete and the matter is ripe for arguments. It is contended by the learned counsel that both these documents are certified copies and are public documents and above suspicion from any angle. These documents are crucial for doing justice in the election petition pending consideration before the Election Tribunal. However, this application was wrongly rejected on the ground that issues were framed on 7. 7. 89 and certified copies of the two documents were obtained on 27. 7. 89 but the application has been filed only on 15. 2. 90. Thus, the application is belated and no sufficient cause has been shown for the same. It is also urged that (he petitioner has no other alternative remedy, but to approach this Court under its writ jurisdiction to get the injustice done to him redressed. No reply has been filed to the writ petition. It is submitted by Mr. J. P. Goyal, learned counsel for the respondents, that this petition does not deserve to be entertained, since it is filed against an interlocutory order. It is further submitted that no good cause has been shown for filing the documents late and there is no ground to interfere with the discretion exercised by the Election Tribunal. It is also submitted that after the decision of the election petition, if it is decided against the petitioner, he will have chance to file writ petition and refusal to take documents on record can be agitated as one of the grounds. I have heard both the parties. It may be pointed out that there is no bar, regarding entertaining a writ petition against an interlocutory order. The learned counsel has placed reliance on Kailash Narain vs. Bhairoon Dutta (1) in which, a Civil Judge disallowed four unstamped receipts in evidence. This order was challenged in writ petition. It was held by this Court that since the petitioner had alternate remedy of going in appeal against the said order, the writ petition was not maintainable. In Trilochan Singh & another v. Shri Jaspal Singh and Another (2), it was held by the Delhi High Court that when trial court refused to allow production of rent receipts at a late stage during trial of suit for eviction, the same cannot be agitated by way of writ petition. All these authorities are of no help to the petitioner, since the proceedings were under C. P. C. and not regarding an election petition. In Ratan Singh v. Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Dholpur (3), an order regarding recounting passed by the Election Tribunal under Rules, 1960, was challenged by way of writ petition. It was held by this Court that this was an interlocutory order and no exceptional circumstances exist in the present case, which may require interference with an interlocutory order. This authority is also of no help to the petitioner, since in the present case, the trial court has denied production of certified copies of public documents, which are beyond suspicion. The purpose of extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 is to do substantial justice between the parties. Even though, this Court is reluctant to interfere with interlocutory orders, but the same can be done, if the circumstances are such. Under the Rules, 1960, the petitioner has no other remedy, but to approach this Court, under writ jurisdiction to agitate the grievances, which will be crucial to the decision of the election petition. Merely, because after the election petition is finally decided and the petitioner will have chance to approach this Court by way of writ petition, in which the ground regarding illegal rejection of the documents can also be raised, it cannot be said that on this ground, this petition should not be entertained. It may be pointed out that the provisions of O. XIII, r. 2, C. P. C. are only procedural in nature. The procedure is meant for facilitating the dispensation of justice and not for causing impediment in the path of justice. The procedure is meant to advance the cause of justice and, therefore, in order to do substantial justice, technicalities of procedure need not be adopted like rituals. The very object of framing O. XIII rr. 1 & 2, C. P. C. , is that documents, which are in possession of the parties should be filed at the appropriate time and to prevent the fraud by late production of suspicious document. These Rules are not panel in nature and the discretion invested in Court of Law is to be exercised in such a way that suspicious documents are not allowed to be filed at late stage, but the documents, which are above suspicion, even though filed late, should be allowed in the interest of justice to ensure fair trial between the parties.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on Mool Chand Sharma v. Hari Shanker Sharma. (4), in which, late production of documents under O. XIII, r. 2, C. P. C. was not allowed on the ground that the documents were produced at a late stage and were not beyond suspicion. In Jagjit Cotton Textile Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (5), a revision was filed against the order passed under O. XIII, r. 2, C. P. C. THE preliminary objection was raised against the maintainability of revision petition and while interpreting Section 115, C. P. C. it was held that the order of the trial court should not be interfered, merely on account of the fact that the decision is erroneous in fact or in law and that none of the documents were going to affect the ultimate decision of the case, in which it has been filed. It was further observed that material irregularity means committing some error of procedure in course of trial, which is material in that, it may have affected the ultimate decision itself. THEse authorities are evidently of no help to the non-petitioners. In Ebrahim Aboobakar v. Custodian General (6), it was observed by the Apex Court that a writ of certiorari cannot be granted to quash the decision of an inferior court within its jurisdiction unless it is shown that the order passed is without jurisdiction or in excess of it or in violation of the principles of natural justice. THE observations of the Apex Court are applicable to the circumstances of the present petition. This is a matter, in which certified copies of public documents are denied to be produced, merely on the ground of delay, which will cause failure of justice and will violate the principles of natural justice also. Parties approach the Court to get substantial justice and justice should not be denied to them, merely on the ground of procedural technicalities,which, in fact, deny the justice THE petitioner has also explained the reason for filing the documents late. documents are beyond suspicion and require no evidence to be recorded. respondent No. 2 can be compensated by way of Cost, since the documents are filed late. This writ petition is, therefore, allowed and the order dated July 6, 1990 (Anx. l), passed by respondent No. l, the Munsif & Judicial Magistrate (Election Tribunal), Karauli is set aside. The application of the petitioner under O. XIII, r. 2, C. P. C. is allowed provided he pays to respondent No. 2 Ram Khiladi or deposits in Court Rs. 400/- as costs for late production of the documents within a period of 15 days from the date of this order, in the trial court. The petition is allowed, with no order as to costs. . ;