The non-filing of the certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 at the relevant stage is a curable defect, and the certificate can be produced at any stage if the trial is not over.

JUDGEMENT

1. Before adverting to the controversy at hand, it is necessary to refer to facts in brief being, the petitioner is the proprietor of M/s Shiv Aluminum & Glass and is engaged in the business of supply and installation of glass, its materials and items. The respondent approached the petitioner in 2010 for placing work orders for installation of glass façade for various sites in the Common Wealth Games Village. The said work orders were placed on multiple dates and materials were duly supplied and installed at the sites as per the arrangement reached by the parties. Payments were made from time to time to the petitioner till 17.08.2011. However, a sum of Rs. 12,00,580/- was due against the respondent which remained unpaid despite raising repeated request for payment. Aggrieved, petitioner served a legal notice dated 25.04.2014 seeking payment of the aforesaid due amount.

2. In the absence of any fruitful outcome of the legal notice sent by the petitioner, the petitioner instituted the suit for recovery of Rs. 17,87,858/- along with interest, against the respondent before the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as “Trial Court”), which is stated to be currently at the stage of plaintiff’s evidence and plaintiff/PW-1 is under cross-examination.

3. Notably, the issues in the suit were framed on 12.03.2015. Later in the course of proceedings, the petitioner on 13.09.2017, moved an application under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred as “CPC”) seeking to file on record a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred as “IEA”) to support the Statement of Account, around which the present petition revolves. Reply to the said application was also filed by the respondent.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that inadvertently, at the time of filing the suit, he did not file the certificate under Section 65B IEA in support of his computerized Statement of Account due to lack of knowledge. Thus, the petitioner moved an application under Section 151 CPC before the learned Trial Court thereby praying that the certificate under Section 65B IEA be taken on record, which was filed along with the said application.

5. The learned Trial Court vide the impugned order dated 26.07.2018 dismissed the said application on the ground that cross-examination of PW-1 has already been started. Thus, the present petition has been filed before this court invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking intervention with the impugned order passed in Civil Suit No. 55511/2016 titled as “Ram Kishan v. Emaar MGF”, pending adjudication before the learned Trial Court.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Trial Court ignored the basic principle of law that the matter should be tried on merits and technicalities should not come in the way of justice. Moreover, petitioner would suffer irreparable loss and injury if the certificate under Section 65B IEA is not taken on record and hence, impugned order is liable to be set aside.

7. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that no prejudice would have been caused to the respondent, if the said application would have been allowed as the matter is still at the stage of plaintiff’s evidence and evidence of plaintiff/PW-1 is ongoing and thus, the said certificate would easily be taken on record.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent refuted the submissions of the petitioner by stating that the said application is without any cause of action, hence, is liable to be dismissed as the same does not satisfy the ingredients of Section 151 CPC as parties should not be allowed to file any document at any stage of the pleadings as they deem fit and proper.

9. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that during the cross- examination of PW-1, counsel for the respondent did put a specific question to PW-1 regarding abse