- (1.) THE petitioner-original plaintiff has preferred the present petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India,challenging the order dated 30.8.2012,passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.5, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, (hereinafter referred to as "the trial court ") in civil suit No. 392/03, whereby the trial court has rejected the application of the petitioner filed under Or. VIII R. 1 of C.P.C.
(2.) IN the instant case, the respondent no. 2-original plaintiff has filed the suit for eviction against the petitioner and the respondent no. 3 (original-defendants), on the ground of non-payment of rent and sub-letting the suit shop and also on the ground of bona fide necessity. The said suit has been resisted by the petitioner-defendant no.1, denying the allegations made against him and further contending interalia that the petitioner was working as a teacher in Vishwa Bandhu Vidhya Mandir, and that he had not sub-let the suit shop to the respondent-defendant no. 3. It further appears that the trial court after framing of the issues arising from the pleadings of the parties had recorded the respective evidence led by the parties. Thereafter, when the suit was kept for the final arguments, the petitioner-defendant no.1, gave the application under Or.VIII Rule 1(3) of C.P.C. for production of the document, namely, the order dated 30.6.2009, as regards his retirement from the school. The said application has been dismissed by the trial court vide the impugned order dated 30.8.2012. It has been sought to be submitted by learned counsel Mr. B.L. Gupta, for the petitioner that the retirement order sought to be produced by the petitioner was very much relevant to prove the fact that the petitioner was working as a teacher in the school and has retired in June 2009. According to him, since the petitioner was serving in the school, he could not have sub-let the suit shop to the defendant no. 2 and the trial court has dismissed the application without considering the said fact. Relying upon the decision of this Court in case of Ram Kishore Machwal Vs. Additional District Judge No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur, and ors. reported in 2008(6) W.L.C.(Raj.), 624, Mr. Gupta submitted that the application under Or. 8 R. 1 should not have been dismissed on the ground of delay only. Mr. Gupta has also relied upon the decision of Uttarakhand High Court in case of M/S Pact Constructions(P)Ltd. V. M/S India Glycols Ltd., (AIR 2010 UTTARAKHAND 104), to submit that the discretion should be exercised by the trial court judiciously. Mr. Gupta has also relied upon the decision of Apex Court in case of M/S R.N. Jadi and Brothers and Ors. Vs. Subhashchandra, AIR 2007 SUPREME COURT 2571), to submit that the provisions contained in Or. VIII Rule 1 are discretionary and not mandatory. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and to the documents on record, more particularly, the impugned order passed by the trial court, it appears that the application under Or. VIII Rule 1(3) of C.P.C. was sought to be submitted by the petitioner-defendant no. 1 at the fag end of the suit when both the parties had led their respective evidence and the suit was kept for final arguments by the trial court. As rightly observed by the trial court, the order of retirement dated 30.6.2009, sought to be produced was very much available with the petitioner when his evidence was being recorded, however, the same was not produced at the relevant time, and that no satisfactory explanation has been given by the petitioner as to why the said document was sought to be produced after such a long delay of three years. This Court is also of the opinion that the document which ought to have been produced by the defendant along with the written statement or subsequently at the time when it came into the possession of the defendant, is not produced at the relevant time, and if no satisfactory explanation is given for the non-production of such document till the evidence of the parties was completed, the trial court was perfectly justified in rejecting such production. No party can be permitted to misuse the process of law or follow the dilatory tactics. There can not be any disagreement with the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, they are not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the instant case, the trial Court having rightly and justly exercised its discretion and there being no perversity pointed out in the said order by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the present petition does not deserve any consideration. The petition being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.;