Procedural justice necessitates that minor clerical errors should not prevent parties from presenting relevant evidence, affirming the significance of intent over technicality.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

Heard Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Vishal Kumar Rai, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. Sachin Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 3-State.

2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order dated 16.09.2022, passed in Original Suit No. 28 of 2018 by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Khunti, by which, the petition filed under Order-VII, Rule- 14(3), read with Section 151 of the CPC has been rejected by the learned court.

3. Mr. Sharma, at the very outset submits that the nature of the prayer in the said petition was to bring on record the documents, however, the wrong provision has been mentioned in the petition being Order-XIII, Rule-4 read with Section 151 of the CPC and that has occurred inadvertently, however, the prayer was for bringing on record certain documents. He submits that the plaintiff-petitioner instituted Original Suit No. 28 of 2018 against the defendants for adjudication a decree declaring Sale Deed No. 507 dated 01.06.2018 as void, illegal and not binding upon the plaintiff and also for declaring the right and title of the plaintiff over the suit land, being part and parcel of Plot No. 109 under Khata No. 91 admeasuring an area of 05 decimals and Plot No. 467 under Khata No. 57 of village-Belahathi, P.S.-Khunti, P.O.- Bhandra, District-Khunti. He submits that the defendants have tried to make out that the name of the husband is otherwise not Munda and in the voter list, the name of is Nita Munda, in view of that the voter list was tried to bring on record to prove the husband of defendant No. 1, however, the learned court has rejected the same.

4. Mr. Vishal Kumar Rai, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 has opposed the prayer and submits that belatedly the said petition was filed that too under the wrong provision of the CPC and in view of that the learned court has rightly passed the said order and there is no illegality in the said impugned order.

5. In view of the above, it is an admitted position that the sale deed is the subject matter of suit property and the name of the husband has been denied by the defendant No. 1 and only the voter list was tried to be bring on record to prove that the name of the husband of defendant No. 1 is Nita Munda.

6. In the interest of justice, not permitting any party to produce documents will amount to do injustice. The relevance of which can be examined by the learned trial court on the basis of evidence to be led, but to deprive the party to the suit not to file documents, even if there is some delay, will lead to denial of justice.

7. It is well settled that the rules of procedure are the handmaid of justice, and even if there is some delay, the trial court should have impose some cost rather than to decline the production of the document itself. It is also well settled that merely wrong provision of law has been mentioned in the petition, that cannot be a ground to reject the petition, as the purpose and intent of the said petition is required to be looked into.

8. In view of the above, the order dated 16.09.2022, passed in Original Suit No. 28 of 2018 by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Khunti, by which, the petition filed under Order-VII, Rule-14(3), read with Section 151 of the CPC has been rejected by the learned court, is hereby, set aside. The petition filed by the petitioner before the learned court is allowed subject to the payment of a cost of Rs. 1,000/- to the defendant No. 1 before the learned court.

9. Both the parties will be at liberty to lead their evidence on the said docu