IMPORTANT POINT
Procedural rules should facilitate justice; denying a party the opportunity to present evidence obstructs the cause of justice.

JUDGMENT :

Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the part of the order dated 13.06.2017 passed by learned Additional Munsif-XIII, Ranchi in Title (Eviction) Suit no. 22 of 2005, whereby and whereunder the application of the petitioner / defendant for bringing on record some additional documentary evidence and to recall the D.W.-14, the defendant himself for further examination with a view to prove the aforesaid documents and has been partly rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the impugned order has submitted that the documents, sought to be proved, were not in possession of the petitioner and same was filed in Title Suit No. 71 of 2005, pending between the same parties.

3. It is further submitted that the documents relied upon by the petitioner are important documentary evidence to prove the stand of defendant in eviction suit. Learned court below has recorded an erroneous finding that the application filed by the defendant / petitioner for adducing additional documentary evidence and recall for further examination is motivated with further delay the trial of the case. There is no whisper in the impugned order that at any stage of trial, due to conduct of the petitioner, it has got delayed. Although, the suit was pending since 2005, the respondent / plaintiff himself was responsible for delay.

4. It is further submitted that mere delay, which is beyond the control of the parties, cannot be used as an axe to cut the defence and obstruct to the cause of justice. The learned trial court has not only partially rejected the application of the petitioner / defendant subject to the payment of cost of Rs.1,000/-, but also closed the avenue of justice forever. Therefore, the impugned order is required to be interfered with and is liable to be quashed and set aside and petitioner may be granted opportunity of leading evidence in his defence, as sought for.

5. Per contra, counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent stating inter alia that the petitioner is habitual of filing frivolous and untenable applications, one after other only to get the said suit lingered and also taking adjournments on frivolous grounds, which led the instant suit pending for more than 12 years. It is very much clear from perusal of the impugned order (Annexure-7) that two applications dated 08.06.2017 and 13.06.2017 were filed on behalf of defendant / petitioner have been disposed of. The application dated 08.06.2017 as contained in Annexure-4 was filed by the defendant / petitioner for recall of D.W.-14 i.e. defendant /petitioner himself, which was rejected on the ground that the plea taken by the petitioner were not based on true statements, rather it was tending to misuse the process of law to delay the disposal of suit, whereas the application dated 13.06.2017 has been partially allowed, even the said application was without merit.

6. It is further submitted that after examination of D.W.-14 / the petitioner, so many adjournments were given and finally he was discharged on 03.06.2017 and the suit was fixed for argument. Another application for recall of defendant for further examination for proving some documents was again filed on 08.06.2017 itself (Annexure-5 to the writ application).

7. It is further alleged that the documents sought for proving in this case are also not relevant and beyond the subject matter of the present eviction proceeding, particularly when the suit for Specific Performance of Contract being Title Suit No. 71 of 2005 is pending between the parties. It is alleged that the agreement for sale proposed to be proved by the defendant / petitioner marked as Exhibit-A & B are forged and fabricated documents and on the strength of those documents, the petitioner cannot claim any right, title and interest in the property.

8. The learned trial court has considered every aspect of the case, particularly the conduct of the defendant in adopting dilatory tactics, has rig