Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(HP) 8006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Bipin Chander Negi, J
JHS SVENDGAARD HYGIENE PRODUCTS – Appellant
Versus
M/s Gupta Electricals – Respondent
CMPMO No. 222 of 2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Vishal Bindra
For the Respondents: Mr. Ashok Kumar Tyagi
The court upheld the principle that procedural defects should not automatically lead to injustice and emphasized the importance of admitting relevant evidence to ensure a fair trial.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 7 Rule 14(3), Section 151 - Documents production - The present petition disputes the trial court's decision to allow the respondent/plaintiff to produce documents after the close of their evidence. The court emphasized the inherent objective of trial to establish truth and the non-automatic dismissal of procedural defects. Court referenced previous decisions showcasing that relevant documents should be admitted for justice - the importance of evidence in establishing claims was underscored. (Paras 3, 6, 10, 12)
(B) Jurisdiction - Supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 - It elaborates on the grounds for intervention, including failure to exercise jurisdiction and grave injustices. It indicates the cautious approach needed in exercising this power during ongoing proceedings. Court affirmed that intervention is warranted only for maintaining public confidence in justice administration and not merely for individual grievances. (Paras 13-18)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. trial objectives emphasize truth and just administration of justice. (Para 9) |
| 2. documents' relevance can justify their late production at trial. (Para 10) |
Bipin Chander Negi, Judge ( oral)
g The present petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 02.09.2021, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P., whereby an application under Order 7 Rule 14(3), read with Section 151 CPC for producing documents by the present respondent/plaintiff has been allowed.
2. Heard learned counsels for the parties. Perused the impugned order and the documents appended along with the present petition.
3. The present respondent/plaintiff in the case at hand has filed a suit for recovery. The same is appended alongwith the present petition as Annexure-P1. It is alleged in the plaint that the respondent/plaintiff used to supply electricaHl material to the petitioners/defendants and had also rented out an electrical transformer on a daily rental basis to the petitioners/defendants Based on the aforesaid purchases made by the petitioners/defendants from tthe respondent/plaintiff and on account of daily rental being charged by the respondent/plaintiff for having hired an electrical transformer, certain payments were due to the respondent/plaintiff from the petitioners/defendants. The details of the ledger in this respect have been given in para No. 3 of the plaint. In the said paragraph of the plaint, details of bills have been mentioned.
4. Admittedly, in the case at hand evidence of the respondent/plaintiff is over and the matter is now fixed for leading evidence of the petitioners/defendants. In the aforesaid backdrop, an application under Order 7 Rule 14(3), read with Section 151 , CPC was filed by the respondent/plaintiff for production of documents. The same is appended alongwith as Annexure-P5. Details of the documents sought to be placed and proved on record are mentioned in para No. 2 of the said application. The details of bills sought to be now produced in fact tally with the bills, details whereof have been given in para No. 3 of the plaint filed by the respondent/plaintiff.
5. The reason cited for non production of the same on an earlier occasion is highlighted as inadvertence and a bona-fide mistake committed by the petitioners/defendants. The application so filed was vehemently opposed by the petitioners/defendants. In reply so filed, it is contended that there is a gross unexplained delay on the part of the respondent/plaintiff for placing these documents on recorud, moreso, when their evidence has been closed.
6. CTrial is a search of truth. This purpose is succinctly captured in the following terms in American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, 2007:
“This purpose of trial is to determine the validity of the allegations. The objective is to secure a fair and impartial administration of justice between the parties to the litigation and not the achievement of a hearing wholly free from errors. Once a civil action has been instituted and issue is joined upon the pleadings, there must be a trial on the issue before a judgment may be rendered.
Trial is not a contest between lawyers but a presentation of facts to which the law may be applied to resolve the issues between the parties and to determine their rights. It is also not a sport; it is an inquiry into the truth, in which the general public has an interest”
7. Procedure is a handmaid of justice. The same should not be made a tool to deny justice or to defeat substantive rights.
To the aforesaid principle, there are well recognized exceptions, the same have been laid down by the Apex Court in 2006 (1) SCC 75, Uday Shankar Triyar Vs. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh and Anr. The relevant extract is reproduced hereinbelow:-
“17. Non-compliance with any procedural requirement relating to a pleading, memorandum of appeal or application or petition for relief should not e
