The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court has the discretion to reject an application to produce and prove documents under Order 8 Rule 1-A (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure if it deems the documents unnecessary to advance the case and allowing them would further delay the case unnecessarily. The judgment also emphasizes the importance of diligence in bringing relevant documents on record in a timely manner.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Mohan Goel, J.

By way of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, following reliefs have been prayed for:-

“It is, therefore, prayed that impugned order dated 2.11.2018, Annexure P-4, passed by the Ld. Senior Civil Judge, Court No. 1, Una, in CMA under Order 8 Rule 1-A (3), titled Sanjay Kumar and another vs. Moti Kapila, whereby the application for placing on record the documents has been dismissed may be quashed and set aside and the petitioner may be held entitled to place on record the relevant documents, in the interest of justice.

Any other relief, deeded proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be allowed.”

2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present petition are that respondents herein have filed a suit for mandatory injunction against the present petitioner directing him to hand over the suit land as also for recovery of licence fee of Rs.2,30,000/-. Said suit was filed somewhere in the month of November/December, 2011. Written statement by the present petitioner was filed to the suit in the year 2012.

3. In the year 2018, when the suit was at the arguments stage, an application stood filed by the present petitioner/defendant under Order 8, Rule 1-A (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code’) for permission to produce and prove on record certified copies of police complaint dated 15.09.2010 and police diary No. 28, dated 15.09.2010. A copy of the said application is appended on record as Annexure P-8. It stood mentioned in the said application that at the time of filing of the written statement, certified copies of the said documents were not in the hands of defendant nor were traceable in the record of Police Department and the same could only be traced and collected by the defendant by applying under Right to Information Act from the Una Police on 29.03.2018 and that too with great efforts. It further stood mentioned in the application that the application was filed in good faith and in a bonafide manner and without any unreasonable delay.

4. The application stood opposed on the ground that after the filing of the written statement on 07.06.2012, more than 6 opportunities were availed by the defendant to lead evidence and though the said documents were well within the knowledge of the defendant since the very inception of the suit, the same were not filed inter alia for the reason that the said documents have no relevance with the facts of the suit. It further stood mentioned in the reply that earlier also an application under Order 8, Rule 1-A (3) of the Code stood filed by the defendant on 17.09.2017 and the same was allowed as plaintiff had pleaded no objection qua the same. The stand of the plaintiff thus in the reply was that the application was filed just with the intent to delay the adjudication of the suit with malafide intention.

5. Said application stands rejected by the learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 02.11.2018. Learned trial Court while dismissing the application has held that the parties being alive of the matter in controversy had gone to trial and led their evidence and despite the fact that the documents were already in existence when defendant lead produced his evidence, he did not exercise due diligence at the appropriate stage of the case. It further held that earlier also similar application stood filed by the defendant and at that stage, documents which are now intended to be produced on record, could have been produced which the defendant failed to do. Learned trial Court further held that documents were not necessary to advance the case of the defendant and taking the same on record would further delay the case unnecessarily. It thus dismissed the application.

6. The order so passed by learned trial court has been assailed by the petitioner by way of this petition inter alia on the ground that learned Court below has erred in coming to the conclusion that the documents were not necess