1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent heard finally.

2. By this petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 26-3-2018 passed in Special Civil Suit No. 70/2014. By the impugned order, the trial Court has rejected the application moved by the petitioner-plaintiff to produce the original documents i.e. rent receipts.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the trial Court has wrongly refused to exercise jurisdiction vested in it and order impugned is perverse and not sustainable in law. By inviting attention to the facts leading to make application seeking permission to produce the original documents, the learned counsel submits that inadvertently the original copies of the rent receipts remain to be produced on record, though the xerox copies of the same were already produced and also accepted in evidence. During the cross-examination of plaintiff's witness as it was realised that inadvertently original receipts remained to be produced on record, the application was moved seeking permission to produce the original rent receipts of which xerox copies were already produced. However, the trial Court has rejected the application. It is contended that in order to ensure the substantial justice being made, the trial Court ought to have allowed the application. He submit that no prejudice would cause to defendants if original receipts are allowed to be produced on record. In this context the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred and relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Ivy Muriet Fonseca vs. Porus Adi Doctor, reported in 2005 MhLJ Online (S.C.) 26 = 2005(4) Bom.C.R. 342.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents argued that the filing of such application is nothing but tactics adopted by the petitioner to protract the hearing of the suit. Learned counsel pointed out that the petitioner-plaintiff has secured the order of mandatory injunction against defendants. As per the order passed, the defendants have been directed to complete the construction of shops in a specified period. He submit that in order to gain advantage of said order, the petitioner-plaintiff is deliberately adopting tactics to protract the hearing of the case. Learned counsel submit that before filing this application, various proceedings were filed before the trial Court as well as this Court. It is contended that thrice the time has been extended by this Court to decide the suit. As per the last order passed by this Court on 25-1-2018, the time has been extended by three months and the said period is going to expire on 25-4-2018. In this background, learned counsel submit that in the facts and circumstances of the case and particularly the conduct of the petitioner, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

6. Having regard to the submissions advanced in the light of over all facts of the case, I am of the view that the trial Court has erred in rejecting the application seeking production of original documents. Although the trial Court may be justified in observing that as per the requirement of law, the plaintiff ought to have produced all the original documents with the plaint or immediately after settlement of issues, but said provision does not prevent the Court to accept the original documents at a stage. It is well within the scope of exercise of powers of Civil Court to allow such production at a stage subsequent to settlement of issues, if a case is made out to entertain such request. The Courts while dealing with procedural aspect are expected to adopt a pragmatic and liberal approach in entertaining such request and should not adopt hyper technical approach. Unless a case of serious prejudice or miscarriage of justice being caused to other side is made out, normally the Court is expected to entertain such request if proper explanation put forth by th