Procedural rules must serve justice, allowing document submissions and amendments even with delays, provided they are relevant to the case.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos.1 and 3.

2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order dated 20.03.2024 passed in Title Suit No.141/2016 by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) II-cum-Special Judge L.A. cases, Hazaribagh whereby a leave petition filed by the opposite party No.1 for grant of leave for filing some documents under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 14 of Code of Civil Procedure was rejected. Further prayer is made for quashing of the order dated 29.04.2024 passed in Title Suit No.141 of 2016 by which the amendment petition filed by the opposite party No.1 was allowed.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the learned Court without providing any reason has been pleased to pass the order dated 20^th March, 2024 whereby he has allowed the documents to be taken on the record and in view of that he submits that the said order is bad in law. He further submits that the learned Court has allowed the amendment petition filed by the opposite party No.2 which is also not in accordance with law.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 submits that he is the purchaser of the property in question and the suit has been instituted for specific performance.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.1 submits that the documents were not in his possession and thereafter the certified copy of the deed and the agreements have been obtained and in view of that it was filed and taking leave of the Court and the learned Court has been pleased to allow the same, as such there is no illegality in the order.

6. So far allowing the documents to be taken on record, the contention of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is misconceived in view of the fact that the relevance of the said documents can be examined by the trial Court on the basis of the evidence to be laid, however, but to deprive a party to suit not to file documents even if there is some delay in need to denial of justice.

7. It is well settled that the rules of procedure has hand-made of justice and, therefore even if there is some delay the trial court should have enforce a cost rather than to decline the production of the document itself. Here in the case in hand the learned Court after applying the mind has been pleased to allow the documents and the relevancy of that document can be taken care of in the suit by way of leading the evidence by both the sides, as such the Court finds that there is no illegality in the order dated 20^th March, 2024.

8. So far the order dated 29.04.2024 is concerned with regard to the amendment by that the only amendment was allowed to be made in the prayer portion to the effect to declare the sale deed as null and void, if a case of specific performance is there that is a natural prayer and in view of that the learned Court has allowed the amendment petition, as such there is no illegality in the said order also.

9. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis the Court finds that there is no illegality in both the orders, as such this petition is dismissed. However, this order will not prejudice the case of either of the parties in the trial.

10. Pending petition, if any, is also disposed of.