ORDER

1. The S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6299/2019 is filed by the petitioners being aggrieved with the order dated 14.03.2018, whereby the trial court has rejected the application filed by the petitioners under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC to allow them to produce original documents, photocopies of which, have already been filed by the petitioners alongwith the written statements. The trial court has rejected the said application while observing that the petitioners have failed to mention in their application that how the original documents are relevant. The trial court has also observed that though the petitioners were impleaded as party in the suit and the evidence in the case was started on 13.07.2012, however, as the application is moved by the petitioners in the year 2018 with a great delay, therefore, the same was dismissed by the trial court.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that alongwith the written statements, they have filed certain photocopies of the documents and vide application under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC, the petitioners have sought permission to produce the orginal documents on record, however, the trial court without considering this aspect of the matter, has illegally rejected the said application vide impugned order.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that though, there is a delay in producing the original documents before the trial court, but the said delay can very well be compensated by paying cost to the plaintiffs. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that the petitioners are ready to pay appropriate cost for the same.

4. The S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11412/2022 is filed by the petitioners being aggrieved with the order dated 21.01.2020, whereby the trial court has closed opportunity of petitioners to produce evidence in defence.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that since the trial court has refused to allow the petitioners to place on record the original documents, photocopies of which are already annexed with the written statement and against the said action of the trial court, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6299/2019 is pending consideration before this Court, therefore, the petitioners have failed to adduce their evidence in defence as they were advised that in the absence of original documents, on which, they are relying, there is no use in producing the evidence in defence.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the interest of justice, one last opportunity may be granted to the petitioners to produce their evidence in defence and for that, the petitioners are ready to pay appropriate cost to the plaintiffs.

7. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 has vehemently opposed the writ petitions and submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned orders passed by the trial court.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the trial court has erred in not allowing the petitioners to produce the original documents, photocopies of which are already filed by the petitioners along with the written statements. There is no basis of finding of the trial court that those documents are not relevant for the purpose of deciding the controversy. However, it is observed that the original documents were in possession of the petitioners since beginning, but they have filed application for bringing those original documents on record with a delay of around six years.

9. Be that as it may, the said delay can very well be compensated by paying appropriate cost to the plaintiff No.1.

10. In the above facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice, both the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders dated 14.03.2018 and 21.01.2020 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Suit No.145/2016 (Old No.460/2001) are set aside and the application filed by the petitioners under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC with a prayer