Order on Board

04.02.2025

1. The petitioners/defendants have filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-

“10.1 Set aside the order dated 03.03.2022 passed by 1^st Additional District and Session Judge Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, in Civil Suit No. 09 B/2015.

10.2 Allow the applications under Order 6 Rule 17 and Order 8 Rule 1(3) of the CP.C.

10.3 Allow the application under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C

10.4 Grant the cost of the petition to the Petitioner.

10.5 Grant any other relief as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. The facts of the present case are that the respondent/plaintiff preferred a civil suit for recovery of the amount of Rs.17,00,000/- from the petitioners/defendants. During the pendency of the civil suit, the defendants preferred an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC before the learned Trial Court, which was rejected vide order dated 03.03.2022. It is stated that an application under Order 8 Rule 1(3) of the CPC was also moved for taking certain documents on record and the same has also been rejected by the learned Trial Court. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Trial Court, the present petition has been preferred.

3. Mr. Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/defendants would submit that an application under Order 8 Rule 1(3) of the CPC moved by the defendants was rejected by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 03.03.2022 on the ground that the defendants failed to plead the relevancy of the documents in the application. He would further submit that the documents were relevant for just adjudication of the case and the Court below ought to have allowed such application. He would contend that the relevancy of the documents would have been examined by the learned Trial Court on the basis of evidence to be led.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and perused the documents placed on record.

5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Levaku Pedda Reddamma & Others. Vs. Gottumukkala Venkata Subbamma & Anr., 2022 LL SCC 533 while dealing with the similar issue held as under:-

“We find that the trial Court as well as the High Court have gravely erred in law in not permitting the defendants to produce documents, the relevance of which can be examined by the trial Court on the basis of the evidence to be led, but to deprive a party to the suit not to file documents even if there is some delay will lead to denial of justice.

It is well settled that rules of procedure are hand- maid of justice and, therefore, even if there is some delay, the trial Court should have imposed some costs rather than to decline the production of the documents itself.”

6. The relevance of documents can be examined by the trial Court on the basis of the evidence to be led, but to deprive a party to the suit not to file documents even if there is some delay will lead to denial of justice.It is well settled that rules of procedure are hand-

maid of justice.

7. Taking into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Levaku Pedda Reddamma (supra) and the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1(3) of the CPC, the application moved under Order 8 Rule 1(3) of the CPC is hereby allowed. The order dated 03.03.2022 passed by the First Additional District and Sessions Judge Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Civil Suit No.09B/2015 whereby the application moved by the defendants was rejected, is hereby set aside.

8. The interim order, if any, granted earlier is hereby vacated.

9. In view of the above, the petition is allowed.