The main legal point established in the judgment is that procedural laws should facilitate, not obstruct, the course of substantive justice, and the courts have the jurisdiction to reopen a case and allow a party to adduce further evidence for the ends of justice.

JUDGMENT :

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This Civil Miscellaneous Application, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed against the order dated 18.12.2017 passed by learned Munsif, Benipatti in Title Suit No. 01/2000 whereby and whereunder petition dated 28.08.2017 filed by the petitioner for taking some documents in evidence, has been rejected.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, who is the plaintiff in the trial Court, has filed the Title Suit No. 01/2000 against the defendants/respondents for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit land alongwith other reliefs. The defendants appeared in the suit, filed written statement and contested the suit. The evidence of the parties started. During the cross examination of defendant No. 1 (DW4) the plaintiff/petitioner on 02.03.2017 filed some of the documents after showing the same to DW4 and thereafter on 28.08.2017 petitioner filed an application praying therein to take the documents mentioned in the petition in evidence as the said documents have got relevancy for disposal of the suit which was objected by the defendant/respondent stating that the petition is not maintainable and the same has been filed for the purpose of delaying the disposal of the suit and to harass the defendant. The said petition has been dismissed by the learned trial Court vide the impugned order dated 18.12.2017.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order is not proper and valid as the learned Court below failed to consider that if the documents in question are taken into evidence, no prejudice shall be caused to the defendants/respondents. He has further submitted that the said documents are relevant for deciding the issue in controversy and as such learned trial Court ought to have taken the same in evidence for proper consideration. Further, it has been submitted that the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss and injury if the documents in question are not taken on record. He has next submitted that the petitioner will not produce any further documents or evidence and cooperate in early disposal of the case.

5. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the documents filed by the plaintiff during the cross -examination of DW-4, neither shown to DW-4 nor are relevant in the instant suit and the petition had been filed for the purpose of delay in the disposal of the suit and to harass the defendant as the suit is pending at the stage of argument and the suit is of the year 2000. The document No. 1 is related to show cause filed in 145 Cr.P.C. proceeding whereas documents No. 2 to 4 are related to criminal case G.R. No. 1038/99 which are not relevant in this suit. He has further submitted that in view of the fact that it is an old case, the trial Court may be directed to expedite the disposal of the suit.

6. Order 13 Rule 1 CPC requires the parties or their counsel to produce all the documentary evidence in their possession or power alongwith pleadings or before settlement of the issue.

Where the document relied upon is intended to be put to a witness in the course of cross-examination for the purpose of testing the veracity of the witness, it is not necessary that such a document should be disclosed/produced at the stage of production of documents or that leave of Court should be obtained for so producing the documents to the witnesses in the course of cross-examination.

7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Billa Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs. Billa Sanjeeva Reddy (1994) 4 Supreme Court Cases 659 observed :-

“It is settled law that, if the documents are found to be relevant to decide the real issue in the controversy, and when the Court felt that the interest of justice requires, that the documents may be received, exercising the power under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC the appellate Court would receive the documents and consider their effect thereof. When such is the situation, wh