O R D E R

4. Upon hearing the counsel for the rival parties and on perusal of record it is seen that though the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sugandhi Vs. P. Rajkumar, (2020) 10 SCC 706 has held that production of documents by defendant after filing of written statement should be liberally permitted by the Court because procedural and technical hurdles should not be allowed to come in way of the Court to do substantial justice but at the same time it should be ensured that procedural violation does not cause serious prejudice to the adversary party. In other words, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that discretion conferred upon the Court is to be exercised judiciously to do substantial justice rather than rely upon technical and procedural violations.

5. In the present case the defendant has claimed to have alternative accommodation for commercial purposes as he claims to have taken some different premises for commercial purposes. In his deposition before the trial Court, the defendant himself has contended that his firm is having 50 to 60 employees and he has a commercial space in some other premises at 15 Civil Lines. He has been cross-examined by the plaintiff in connection with his lease deed of the said other premises and he has also produced bills of electricity of the said other premises which he states to be using for commercial purpose.

6. The documents which the petitioner now wants to file are some other electricity bills and rent receipts for that other premises which he states to be using for commercial purposes. Nothing has been stated in the application under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC that why such documents could not have been produced by him earlier because once the defendant had produced the lease deed, then at the same point of time he could have produced the electricity bills, telephone bills and rent receipts etc. of the said property. However, the petitioner-defendant chose not to produce the said documents and upon a perusal of the documents which he intends to bring on record before the trial Court, it is seen that these documents are from the year 2010 onwards. There was no reason for such documents to not have been placed on record since the year 2013 when the suit has been pending and at least when the lease deed was brought on record by the petitioner defendant.

7. In such circumstances, the application filed by the petitioner- defendant towards close of defendant evidence and after his own cross- examination was over, cannot be stated to be a bonafide application on part of the defendant so as to lead this Court to believe that this application needs to be allowed to do substantial justice between the parties. The suit is already pending since last more than 12 years and such an application placing such documents on record which were in knowledge, power and possession of the defendant from the very beginning would only lead to reopening of substantial trial and further delay in decision of the civil suit.

8. Consequently, no indulgence needs to be caused in the matter. The petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

(VIVEK JAIN)

JUDGE nks