The central legal point established in the judgment is the need for a liberal interpretation of procedural provisions and the importance of considering the facts and circumstances of each case in order to achieve substantial justice.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent.

3. This petition challenges the order dated 7/7/2015 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge "A' Court, Ponda in Special Civil Suit no.22/2007/A thereby rejecting the application of the petitioners, who are the defendants in the original suit for grant of permission to produce the additional documents on record.

4. The suit that has been filed by the respondents against the petitioners, claims refund of advance of Rs.30.00 lakhs together with interest and other sums of money from the petitioners. The petitioners have resisted the suit by filing a written statement. The petitioner no.1 is a company and on its behalf one Shri K. Mohan, son of Kala Bhairava entered the witness box as the first witness of the petitioners. During the cross examination of this witness, it transpired that he had not produced on record any letter of authority or copy of the resolution authorizing him to appear and depose on behalf of petitioner no.1. When the cross examination was going on, the petitioners filed an application for grant of permission to produce additional documents. Among the additional documents sought to be produced were a copy of a resolution and a letter of authority authorizing said Shri K. Mohan to depose on behalf of petitioner no.1. This application was strongly opposed by the respondents. After hearing the petitioners and the respondents, the learned Civil Judge found that the application was belatedly filed with a view to fill up the lacuna in the case without giving any justifiable cause and therefore by the order passed on 7/7/2015 rejected the application. Not being satisfied with the same, the petitioners/defendants are before this Court in the present writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that no prejudice would have been caused to the plaintiffs or the respondents by allowing of this application, as the cross examination of the petitioner's witness is still underway. He further submits that the opinion of the learned Civil Judge these documents have been subsequently created by way of an afterthought is factually incorrect as during the course of the cross examination itself, the witness of the petitioner had given a date of 17/11/2014, as the date on which the resolution authorizing him to depose on behalf of the defendants was passed. He further submits that interest of justice would demand that the application so filed by the petitioners is allowed.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that this is not a fit case for interfering with the exercise of discretion on the part of the learned Civil Judge. He submits that the date of 17/11/2014, when specifically asked in this regard during the course of cross examination, was given by the petitioner's witness (DW.1) in a fictitious manner and later on, the resolution and letter of authority were manufactured by the petitioners just to synchronize their dates with the date so declared by DW.1 in an imaginative way. He further submits that these documents were created by way of an afterthought just to take away the effect of cross examination and it is here that prejudice to the respondents lies. He further submits that rules of procedural law, exist for assisting the parties and advancing cause of justice and there is also something like principle of miscarriage of justice. In the instant case, he further submits, if these documents are allowed to be produced on record, it would result in doing injustice to the respondents. He also submits that the application itself has been filed in a very caviler manner by the petitioners. According to him, the only reason given in the application for non production of the relevant documents at the time of filing of the written statement is an inadvertent mistake and surprisingly, he further submits, the respondents have not elaborated as who