JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.

1. Heard Shri S. Dutta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri K. Upamanyu, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri M. Biswas, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1, which is the contesting respondent and has also filed caveat in this case.

2. Considering the subject matter in question and also the fact that the learned counsel for the respondent no. 1, which is the contesting respondent and the plaintiff in the suit below is present, this matter is taken up for disposal at the motion stage itself.

3. The petitioner is the defendant in a suit filed for declaration of right, title, interest and recovery of possession which was registered as TS No. 33/2010 before the learned Civil Judge No. 1, Cachar, Silchar in which the petitioner had filed the written statement.

4. It is the specific case of the petitioner that though certain documents were mentioned in the written statement, those were not filed in accordance with law along with the said written statement and accordingly, two applications were filed by the petitioner – defendant before the learned Court. By the first application numbered as Petition No. 237/01, a prayer was made to take judicial notice of the said documents. The petitioner had filed another application to call for the original documents including the relevant book from the office of the Senior Sub-Registrar, Silchar and that petition was numbered as Petition No. 246/13.

5. Vide the impugned order dated 07.06.2023, both the petitions have been rejected and it is the legality and validity of the said order which has been put to challenge in this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

6. Shri Dutta, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order suffers from material irregularity and illegality as the learned Court has failed to exercise powers vested in law. By referring to Section 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, it is submitted that under the aforesaid provision, adequate powers are vested on the Court to order discovery, inspection, production etc. and the said power has been ignored while passing the impugned order. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that though the second petition may not be structured in the format of a petition under Order VIII Rule 1(A) of the CPC, the spirit should be followed and leave should have been granted by taking into consideration the nature of the documents involved in the petition. He submits that the documents are necessary for a fair and complete adjudication of the lis between the parties.

7. By drawing the attention of this Court to the written statement, the learned Senior Counsel by referring to paragraph 14 has submitted that adequate pleadings in respect of the said documents were made and therefore these documents are not new and therefore the learned Court should have allowed the petition in the interest of justice. He submits that it is the truth which is required to be arrived at in a judicial process.

8. It is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel that the ultimate endeavor of a Court in seisin of a dispute is to reach the truth and for such purpose, the views of the Court should not be stringent and at times, in the interest of justice, lenient view are required to be adopted so far as the procedures are concerned as the procedure are handmaid of justice. He further submits that it is the substantial justice which is the objective of the judicial system. The learned Senior Counsel accordingly prays for interference by this Court and to set-aside the impugned order dated 07.06.2023 and to allow the prayers made in the two petitions.

9. In support of his submissions, Shri Dutta, learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance upon the following case laws:

(i) Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes and Others vs. Erasmo Jack De Sequeira (Dead) through LRs. (2012) 5 SCC 370

(ii) Manowar Husain vs. Sri Manoranjan Das, 2016 (4) Gau. L.R. 298

(iii) Sugandhi (De