ORAL JUDGMENT

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 27.09.2013 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Una below Exhibit-80 as well as the order dated 03.07.2013 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Una below Exhibit-78 in Regular Civil Suit No.177 of 1998 and seeks a direction to the trial court to permit the production of documents as prayed for in Exhibit-80 application preferred by the petitioners.

2. The facts of the case stated briefly are that the respondent herein instituted a suit being Regular Civil Suit No.177 of 1998 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Una for declaration and permanent injunction praying that he has right to get water from the well situated on the land bearing survey No.342/1 paiki, situated in the sim of Una town owned by the defendant No.1 and also has a right to lay down pipelines through the land of the defendant No.2 and also sought permanent injunction to the effect that the plaintiff may not be restrained from taking water twice in a week and the defendants be restrained from damaging the pipelines lying on the land of the plaintiffs and also prayed that the defendants be restrained from damaging the pipelines of survey No.657 belonging to the plaintiff.

3. Pursuant to the summons issued by the trial court, the petitioners, who are the original defendants, filed their written statement at Exhibit-22, inter alia, contending that the defendants have land admeasuring acres 5 – 00 gunthas of survey No.342/2 paiki, and that there is a well on the said land and the plaintiff has no right to take water from that well.

4. On 18.04.2013, the respondent – plaintiff filed a purshis declaring that he does not want to lead further evidence and his evidence is over. On 19.06.2013, the petitioners – original defendants made an application, Exhibit-78 seeking permission for production of documents together with a list of documentary evidence, on the ground that all the documents are certified copies and the documents are very much helpful for arriving at a just decision in the suit. By an order dated 03.07.2012, the said application came to be rejected on the ground that the documents were not produced before the issues came to be framed. The matter rested at that stage and the petitioner did not challenge that order.

5. Subsequently, on 14.08.2013, the petitioners – defendants filed an application Exhibit-80 along with an affidavit seeking permission for production of documents which were mentioned in the earlier list of documents. The said application came to be rejected by the impugned order, which has given rise to the present petition.

6. Mr. Tushar Sheth, learned advocate for the petitioners invited the attention of the court to the provisions of rule 1A of Order VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”), which makes provision for “Duty of defendant to produce documents upon which relief is claimed or relied upon by him”. Reference was made to sub-rule (3) thereof, which provides that a document which ought to be produced in court by the defendant under this rule, but, is not so produced shall not, without the leave of the court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit. It was submitted that therefore, if sufficient cause is made out, the court is duly empowered in view of the provisions of sub- rule (3) of rule 1A of Order VIII of the Code to permit production of the documents even if the same were not produced prior to framing of the issues. It was submitted that having regard to the object of the said rule, a liberal view is required to be taken and that when the document is relevant for deciding the controversy in issue, the same ought to have been received in evidence in the interest of justice. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar and others, A