Preventing document submission due to delay constitutes injustice; courts should allow evidence while imposing costs for late filings instead of rejecting submissions outright.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Opposite parties in both the cases.

2. Both these cases are arising out of the same suit and in view of that both the cases are heard together.

3. C.M.P. No. 949 of 2024 has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 07.08.2024 passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division Bench-II, Jamtara, whereby the petition filed under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure in Original Suit No. 01/2018 was rejected by the learned court concerned.

4. C.M.P No. 82 of 2025 has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 22.06.2024 passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division-II, Jamtara, whereby the petition filed under Order VII Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure in Original Suit No. 01/2018 was also rejected by the learned court.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in C.M.P. No. 949 of 2024, submits that the petitioners are the defendants in the said suit and the petition has been filed for bringing on record the document, which has been rejected by the learned court on the ground that belatedly the said document has been tried to be brought on record.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in C.M.P. No. 82 of 2025 submits that the petitioner is the plaintiff in the said suit and petition has been filed for bringing on record the document, which has been rejected saying that it was not marked as exhibit and he submits that the same may kindly be allowed.

7. It is an admitted position that the petitioners are the defendants and the plaintiffs respectively in the above cases.

8. After the proceeding started, the said petitions have been filed for bringing on record the documents by the plaintiff and the defendants, however, the learned court has been pleased to reject the same on the reasons which has been noted in the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners.

9. Not to allow the plaintiff/ defendants to produce the documents will lead to injustice and in view of that the relevance of the documents can be examined by the learned trial court on the basis of evidence to be laid, but to deprive a party to the suit not to file the documents even if there is some delay will lead to denial of justice. It is well settled that the rules and the procedures are the hand-maid of justice and if there is some delay the learned trial court should have imposed some costs rather than to decline the production of documents itself.

10. Consequently, both these petitions are allowed, and the impugned orders dated 07.08.2024 as well as 22.06.2024 respectively passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Divison-II, Jamtara are, hereby, set-aside.

11. Consequently the petitions Order VIII Rule 1A(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure in Original Suit No. 01/2018 as well as under Order VII Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure in Original Suit No. 01/2018 filed for allowing the documents to be brought on record by the plaintiff respectively are allowed.

12. These petitions are disposed of, accordingly.