Order 8 Rule 1(3) CPC requires due diligence and relevance for post-written statement documents; unexplained delay, pre-existence of some, and irrelevance to suit dispute warrant dismissal; no Article 227 interference absent perversity.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Mohan Goel, J.

By way of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged order dated 17.10.2025, passed by the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No.1 Poanta Sahib, , in terms whereof, an application filed by the petitioners under Order 8 Rule 1(3) of the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE stands dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the learned Trial Court has erred in dismissing the application without appreciating that as the documents, which the petitioners intended to place on record came into existence after the filing of the written statement, therefore, there was no dereliction as far as the petitioners are concerned, to bring the documents on record and due diligence was exercised by the petitioners. Learned counsel further submitted that otherwise also, as the documents were necessary for the adjudication of the suit, this extremely important aspect of the matter has been ignored by the learned Trial Court while dismissing the application. Learned counsel further submitted that the factum of some of the parties having died during the pendency of the proceedings and their legal representatives being brought on record consumed time, has also been ignored by the learned Court while passing the impugned order. No other point was urged.

3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and having perused the impugned order as well as the application which was filed under Order 8 Rule 1(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure as also the copy of plaint and written statement, this Court is of the considered view that there is no infirmity in the order under challenge so as to call for interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

4. The Civil Suit was filed in the month of March, 2013, as is evident from the copy of plaint Annexure P-2. Written statement thereto was filed by the present petitioners in the month of October, 2013, copy whereof is appended with the petition as Annexure P-3. In terms of the application that was filed under Order 8 Rule 1(3) of the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE , a prayer was made to place on record the documents, which as per the petitioners came into existence after the filing of the civil suit as well as the written statement, details whereof are given in Para-2 of the application. The documents are sixteen in number. They include a certified copy of application for partition dated 19.06.2012, certified copy of partition dated 25.02.2014, certified copy of application for issuance of warrant of delivery of possession of the partition dated 23.06.2014, copy of warrant dated 11.05.2018, copy of police help dated 11.06.2019, copy of report of delivery of possession dated 14.06.2019, copy of Nakal Rojnamcha dated 14.06.2015 and copy of Jamabandi for the year 2015-16. Said application is dated 25.08.2025. There is not even a murmur in the application as to why the same was being filed in the year 2025, when the documents referred to therein relate to the period from 2012 to 2019. Not only this, the contents of the application that the documents which the petitioners intended to place on record came into existence after the filing of the civil suit and written statement is also a false narration made in the application, because, certain documents for example, copy of application for partition dated 19.06.2012 etc., were already existing even before the filing of the civil suit