- (1.) THE present petition has been filed by the petitioner-original defendant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the impugned order dated 27.6.07 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Jaipur City (West), Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Civil Suit No. 197/06, whereby the trial court has rejected the application of the petitioner for taking the documents on record under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) read with Section 151 of CPC.
(2.) THE short facts giving rise to the present petition are that the respondent No.2-plaintiff has filed the suit for eviction and for arrears of rent against the petitioner-defendant before the trial court. The said suit was resisted by the petitioner-defendant by filing the written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint. The trial court after framing the issues proceeded further with the trial and both the parties led their respective evidence. The petitioner-defendant thereafter submitted an application under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) read with Section 151 of CPC seeking permission to produce certain documents mentioned therein. The trial court rejected the said application vide the impugned order dated 27.4.07. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present petition has been filed invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel Mr. Anoop Dhand for the petitioner submitted that the documents sought to be produced are very material and relevant to prove the defence of the petitioner that the rent for the relevant period was paid up by the petitioner. It is also submitted that the petitioner would not lead any evidence nor recall any witnesses already examined to formally prove the documents, however the same may be permitted to be taken on record in the interest of justice. Relying upon the judgment of this court in case of Santveer Singh Vs. Addl. Civil Judge, Hanumangarh and Anr. 2004(3) WLC (Raj.) 397, he has submitted that the procedural law is intended to facilitate and not to obstruct course of substantial justice.
(3.) HOWEVER, the learned counsel Mr. A.K. Pareek for the respondent No.2-original plaintiff vehemently submitted that the petitioner has not mentioned any reason for the late production of the documents in question and, therefore, the trial court has rightly rejected the application of the petitioner. Mr. Pareek also submitted that the documents ought to be produced have no reference in the written statement filed by the petitioner and the witnesses examined by the petitioner have also not stated anything about the said documents and, therefore, the said documents should not be permitted to be produced at the fag end of the suit, which otherwise would prejudice the case of the respondent-plaintiff. The learned counsel Mr. Pareek has relied upon the judgment of this court in case of Ramji Lal Vs. Bhoop Singh 1993 (3) WLC (Raj.) 260 in support of his submission.;