ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Rule.

2. These petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India arise out of the orders dated 14.07.2015 passed by the learned Judge, Small Cause Court No. 3, Ahmedabad in the applications filed by the present petitioner – original plaintiff for exhibiting the documents produced in different HRP suits filed by him. The said applications came to be rejected by the learned Court below and hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

3. Heard, learned advocate Mr. N. V. Gandhi with learned advocate Mr. Dhruvik K. Patel for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Mahesh R. Shah for the respondent.

3.1 The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the learned trial Judge has committed an error in not exhibiting the documents produced by the petitioner – plaintiff though proved by the petitioner through oral evidence. He submitted that the learned trial Judge has failed to appreciate the fact that when the evidence is recorded in the form of afÏdavit, the admissibility of the documents produced along with the afÏdavit, is to be decided in accordance with the provisions of O.13 R.4 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC). Last but not the least, the learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that, at least, the learned trial Judge could have exhibited the said documents tentatively, but it is not the case. Thus, making such submissions, he urged to allow these petitions and to issue direction to exhibit the documents in question.

4. As against this, the learned advocate for the respondents heavily resisted the petitions and submitted that the petitioner - plaintiff has failed to prove the documents in question and therefore, the learned trial Judge has rightly rejected the applications of the petitioner – plaintiff to exhibit such documents. He further submitted that the witness of the plaintiff himself has admitted in cross-examination that after 2004, he has not issued the rent receipts and accordingly, the learned trial Judge has rightly appreciated the evidence adduced before him and hence, no interference is required at the hands of this Court in these petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and eventually, it is requested to dismiss the same.

5. Regard being had to the submissions made and considering the impugned order as well as material on record, the issue involved in these petitions appears to be in a very narrow compass that is to say, the petitioner – plaintiff produced certain documents in the suits filed by him and to prove the same, also examined witness. The learned trial Judge, considering the cross- examination of the said witness and after evaluation of the evidence, rejected the said applications and thereby, declined to exhibit the documents as the petitioner – plaintiff failed to prove the contents of the same.

5.1 In this regard, it would be apt to refer to a celebrated decision of the Apex Court in Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat, MANU/SC/1529/2001, wherein, the Court has held as under:

“10. On that day the defence raised another objection regarding admissibility of another document. The trial Judge heard elaborate arguments thereon and upheld the objection and consequently refused to admit that particular document. What the prosecution did at that stage was to proceed to the High Court against the said order and in the wake of that proceeding respondent filed an application on 9.11.2000, for enlarging him on bail on the strength of the order passed by this Court on 31.3.2000 (extracted above). 11. We are compelled to say that the trial Judge should have shown more sensitivity by adopting all measures to accelerate the trial procedure in order to reach its finish within the time frame indicated by this Court in the order dated 31.3.2000 since he knew very well that under his orders an accused is continuing in jail as an under trial for a record period of more than seven years. Now, we feel that the Additional Judge, whether the present incumbent or his