The discretion of the court under Order 8 Rule 1(iii) of the Civil Procedure Code and the importance of justice in allowing the production of documents despite unreasonable delay.

Mahesh Bhagwati, J.

By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has beseeched to quash and set aside the Order dated 20th August, 2011, whereby the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Div.), Pirawa, declined to take the original receipts on record.

2. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully perused the material on record including the impugned Order it is noticed that the suit for permanent injunction came to be filed by the respondent-plaintiff against the petitioner-defendant. The petitioner-defendant is found to have filed the photo-stat copies of certain documents which were taken on record. After completion of evidence of the respondent-plaintiff, when the case was fixed for recording the evidence of defendant on 2nd August, 2011, the petitioner-defendant filed an application imploring the court to take the original receipts on record but the application was dismissed on the ground that the original receipts were filed after unreasonable delay.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that the photo-stat copies of these documents are already on record, so it cannot be said that these are the documents, particulars of which do not figure in the written statement of defence. Since the original receipts could not be procured in time, they could not be filed within the stipulated period, hence, now the original receipts are in his possession and, as such, he may be allowed to produce these documents in the court. The learned trial court has arbitrarily dismissed the application sans assigning any cogent reason, which deserves to be set aside.

4. It is true that after completion of evidence of the respondent-plaintiff, the case was adjourned to 14th September, 2010 for recording the petitioner-defendant's evidence and he was afforded 8 or 9 opportunities to produce the evidence but suddenly on 2nd August, 2011, he filed an application imploring to take the original receipts on record. The documents which ought to have been filed along with the written statement of defence, can be taken on record under Order 8 Rule 1(iii) of Civil Procedure Code with the leave of the court. In such a situation, when the photo-stat copies were already lying on record, the learned trial court ought to have granted leave to produce the documents. The impugned Order is not found to be just and proper in the eye of law and the same deserves to be set aside.

5. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition succeeds and the impugned Order dated 20th August, 2011 stands set aside. The learned trial court is directed to take the original receipts on record in the interest of justice.