( 2026:HHC:12212 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CMPMO No. 735 of 2025

Reserved on : 31.03.2026

Date of Decision: 17.04.2026

____________________________________________________

Naresh Bala ...Petitioner.

Versus

Udey Parkash (deceased) through LRs ...Respondents.

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?

1

Yes

For the petitioner: Mr. Suneet Goel, Senior Advocate

with Mr. Vishwas Kaushal, Advocate.

For the respondents:Ms. Devyani Sharma, Senior

Advocate with Ms. Srishti Negi,

Advocate, for respondents No.1 (a)

to 1(c).

Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocate, for

respondent No.2.

__________________________________________________

Romesh Verma , Judge

The present petition arises out of the order dated

12.11.2025, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nahan,

District Sirmaur, H.P., whereby, an application filed by the

defendant/applicant under the provision of Order 8 Rule 1 (A)

(3) of CPC has been allowed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/

plaintiff filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against

1

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2  ( 2026:HHC:12212 )

one Sh. Udey Prakash and Smt. Padmini Devi before the

Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Nahan, Distt. Sirmaur,

H.P.

3. As per the averments as made in the plaint, it

has been averred that the defendants are successors and

rulers of the Sirmaur estate who have got the exclusive

ownership of Khasra No. 71, 72, 73, 75 alongwith other

Khasra numbers vide partition mutation No. 6 dated

13.12.2014 duly entered in the Jamabandi for the year 2012-

2013. They are not residents of the State of H.P. and have no

interest in the suit land, knowing fully that the suit land is in the

exclusive possession of the plaintiff on the spot. It is further

averred that the defendants, on 14.10.2016, brought JCB

machines and dispossessed the plaintiff, and started leveling

and cutting the suit land illegally. The defendants also

destroyed the orchard of the plaintiff and removed building

material lying nearby the suit land. When the defendants were

confronted and requested to stop interfering with the suit land,

they refused to do so and openly asserted that they had

dispossessed the plaintiff from the suit land. Therefore, a

decree for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the

3  ( 2026:HHC:12212 )

defendants from causing interference over the suit land was

sought by the present plaintiff.

4. The suit was contested by the defendants by

raising preliminary objections with regard to the maintainability,

under valuation, bonafide etc. On merits, the allegations as

leveled in the plaint were refuted and it was denied that the

defendants are not in possession or has no interest on the

suit land. It was specifically denied that the plaintiff is in

possession over the suit land. The defendant No.1 is in

possession and in complete control of the property and is in

the process of developing the property. It was denied that

defendants dispossessed the plaintiff, started the work of

leveling the land and destroyed any orchard over the suit land.

The defendants denied all the allegations as levelled in the

plaint and sought dismissal of the suit filed by the plaintiff.

5. The plaintiff filed replication and reiterated the

averments as made in the plaint. It would be pertinent to

mention here that the Civil Suit was filed on 17.10.2016 and

the written statement was filed by the defendants on

08.02.2017. The learned trial Court framed issues on

17.4.2017. It is an admitted fact between the parties that

4  ( 2026:HHC:12212 )

along with the suit an application Under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2

CPC was filed and the said application was dismissed initially

by the learned trial Court, however, in the appeal, the First

Appellate Court set aside the said order and the appeal filed

by the plaintiff was accepted. Against the judgment as passed

by the First Appellate Court, CMPMO No.449 of 2018 is still

pending in the proceedings under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC.

6. The record of the suit was summoned by this

Court in said CMPMO No.449 of 2018 vide its order dated 09

th

of September 2019. The said case was listed for consideration

before this Court on 15.05.2025 and vide its order, the records

of the learned Trial Court were sent back to the same Court.

7. The defendants/respondents filed an application

under order 8 Rule 1 (A) (3) of CPC for producing the

documents on 11

th

of September 2025. It was averred in the

application that since the proceedings were kept in abeyance

and records of the case file was before this Court and recently,

the records were sent back by this Court, the defendants, on

account of new developments, intend to place on record

certain documents such as water consumption bills, electricity

5  ( 2026:HHC:12212 )

consumption bills, copy of mutation, agreement, photographs,

and approval for running of BMB.

8. It was averred in the application that the

defendants are in complete control and possession of the

property comprised in the suit land. After remitting back of

the case record by the Court on 15.05.2025, new

developments have taken place, which has necessitated to

lead evidence in view of the changed circumstances. It was

averred that the property in suit is being owned and

possessed by late Sh. Udey Prakash and after his death by

the defendants.

9. The documents could not be produced earlier

and that there is no negligence or inaction on the part of the

respondents/defendants as the existence of such documents

cannot be manufactured or disputed. The said application was

filed by the defendants on 11.09.2025 immediately after the

remittance of the case record on 15.05.2025.

10. The petitioner/plaintiff filed reply to the said

application and denied all the averments as made in the

application. It was stated that the application is highly belated

and the documents intended to be placed on record are

6  ( 2026:HHC:12212 )

neither material nor relevant for determination and adjudication

of the case in hand. Further, it has been averred in the reply

that the documents have been prepared falsely in connivance

with the persons having acquaintance with the defendants

and said documents are neither necessary nor required by the

Court for any purpose.

11. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Nahan, Distt.

Sirmaur, H.P. vide its order dated 12.11.2025 allowed the

application filed by the defendants subject to payment of cost

of Rs.2000/- to be paid to the plaintiff/petitioner by the

defendants/respondents.

12. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has approached

this Court by filing the instant petition under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India.

13. It is contended by Sh. Suneet Goel learned

Senior Counsel assisted by Sh. Vivek Negi that the impugned

order is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the application

which was filed by the defendants/respondents is highly

belated and the defendants/respondents have failed to

demonstrate that as to how the documents filed along with the

application under Order 8 Rule 1 (A) (3) of CPC are relevant

7  ( 2026:HHC:12212 )

for the adjudication of the case in hand. He prayed for the

acceptance of the present petition and dismissal of the

application filed by defendants/respondents.

14. On the other hand, Ms. Devyani Sharma, learned

Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Shristhi Negi, Advocate for

respondent No. 1(a) to 1(c) and Mr. Surinder Saklani,

Advocate, for respondent No.2 have defended the impugned

order. It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the

defendants that the learned trial Court has rightly passed the

impugned order and there is no delay in filing the application.

Even otherwise, the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 (A) (3) of

CPC provides an opportunity to the defendants to produce the

documents that should have been produced with the written

statement. She further submits that the procedure is

handmade of the justice and if the procedural violation has not

caused serious prejudice to the opposite party, the Court

should accept the relevant documents by taking a lenient view.

She has contended that no interference that too in the

petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is

permissible in the present case.

15. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

8  ( 2026:HHC:12212 )

16. The case as projected by the plaintiff/petitioner

before this Court is that the application, which has been filed

by the defendant under the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 (A) (3)

of CPC is highly belated and the documents, which have been

filed with the said application are not relevant in any manner

for the adjudication of the present claim.

17. The provisions of Order 8 Rule 1-A, sub-rule 3

reads as under:-

“3. That the above said order came in

existence during the pendency of suit and is

material document and is pertaining to the suit

land and is helpful in adjudication of this

present case and is required to be received in

evidence. Hence this application to receive

the said documents in evidence of the

defendant. The applicant has also applied for

the certified copy of aforesaid order which has

not been received so far. Hence, this

application for the leave of this Hon’ble Court

to receive these documents in evidence of the

deft.”

18. The proposition of law that the rules of procedure

are handmaid of justice and cannot take away the residuary

powers of judges ex debito justitiae, where otherwise it would

be wholly unjust, is well founded. It must be remembered that

courts are respected not on account of their power to legalise

injustice on technical grounds, but because they are capable

of removing injustice and are expected to do so. Further,

9  ( 2026:HHC:12212 )

taking into consideration the fact that substantial justice and

technical considerations are opposed to each other, the cause

of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, as the other

side cannot be said to have a vested right in injustice being

done.

19. All the rules of procedure are the handmaid of

justice. The language employed by the draftsman of

procedural law may be liberal or stringent, but the fact remains

that the object of prescribing procedure is to advance the

cause of justice. In an adversarial system, no party should

ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the

process of justice dispensation. Unless compelled by express

and specific language of the statute, the provisions of the CPC

or any other procedural enactment ought not to be construed

in a manner that could leave the court helpless in extraordinary

situations in the ends of justice.

20. Every trial is a voyage of discovery in which truth

is quest. Truth alone has to be the foundation of justice. The

entire judicial system has been created only to disarm and

find out the real truth.

10  ( 2026:HHC:12212 )

21. Admittedly, the written statement was filed by the

defendants on 08.02.2017. The learned trial Court framed

issues on 17.04.2017 and it is an admitted fact between the

parties that in the proceedings under the provisions of Order

39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC, application for injunction filed by the

plaintiff was earlier dismissed, however, the said order was

reversed by the First Appellate Court in appeal and against the

said findings as returned by the first Appellate Court in

CMPMO No.449 of 2018 is pending before this Court.

22. This Court vide its order dated 09.09.2018 called

for the records and thereafter, there was no occasion on the

part of the defendants to have filed any such application. It is

only when this Court remitted back the records on 15.05.2025

that immediately, the present application has been filed on

11.09.2025. Therefore, under no stretch of imagination, it can

be inferred that the present application is highly belated.

23. It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel for

the petitioner that the documents should have been filed by

the defendants immediately along with written statement which

was filed in 2017.

11  ( 2026:HHC:12212 )

24. As observed earlier, the rules of procedure are

handmaid of justice. The procedure is only handmaid of justice

i.e. all the rules of procedure are the handmade of justice.

25. The submission of learned counsel for the

petitioners that the documents which are intended to be filed

along with the application under Order 8 Rule 1 (A) (3) of CPC

do not disclose that how these documents are relevant for the

adjudication of the present case.

26. To his submission, learned Senior Counsel for

the respondents has argued that since in the present case,

civil suit for permanent prohibitory injunction has been filed by

the plaintiff/ petitioner and the point for determination before

the learned trial Court is that who is in possession of the suit

property and in that regard issue No.1 “whether the plaintiff is

entitled for decree of permanent prohibitory injunction ?”, is

required to be adjudicated and in order to prove the

possession, the defendants intend to place on record the

documents hereinabove. The documents, which have been

filed along with the application are yet to be proved in

accordance with the law, therefore, by no stretch of

12  ( 2026:HHC:12212 )

imagination, it can be inferred that any rights of the plaintiff

have been infringed.

27. By means of the impugned order, the aforesaid

documents filed with the application under Order 8 Rule 1 (A)

(3) of CPC have been ordered to be taken on record and now

those documents are required to be proved in accordance with

the law and the other side, the petitioner/plaintiff shall get the

right to controvert the said documents in cross-examination by

leading evidence. This Court has been informed by the

learned counsel for the parties that the application was filed at

the stage when the evidence of the defendants was yet to

start and now as of today, the evidence of the defendants

has started. Therefore, it cannot be presumed and held that

the application has been filed at the fag end of the trial.

28. The learned trial Court has rightly come to the

conclusion that merely production of the documents is not

going to be proved the same as the present respondents/

defendants have to prove the said documents by leading

evidence on record. The learned trial Court has rightly allowed

the application by taking into consideration the material aspect

on record.

13  ( 2026:HHC:12212 )

29. The Hon’ble Apex Court while in the matter of

Sugandhi (dead) by Legal Representatives and another vs.

P. Raj Kumar represented by his Power Agent Imam OLI,

2020 (10) SCC 706 dealing with the provisions under Order 8

Rule 1 (A) (3) CPC The relevant paras of the same are as

under:

“6. Rule 1A of Order 8 of C.P.C. provides the

procedure for production of documents by the

defendant which is as under:

“1A. Duty of defendant to produce documents

upon which relief is claimed or relied upon by

him.— (1) Where the defendant bases his

defence upon a document or relies upon any

document in his possession or power, in

support of his defence or claim for setoff or

counterclaim, he shall enter such document in

a list, and shall produce it in Court when the

written statement is presented by him and

shall, at the same time, deliver the document

and a copy thereof, to be filed with the written

statement.

(2) Where any such document is not in the

possession or power of the defendant, he

shall, wherever possible, state in whose

possession or power it is.

(3) 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.

(4) Nothing in this rule shall apply to document

—

(a) produced for the crossexamination of the

plaintiff’s witnesses, or

14  ( 2026:HHC:12212 )

(b) handed over to a witness merely to refresh

his memory.”

7. Subrule (1) mandates the defendant to

produce the documents in his possession

before the court and file the same along with

his written statement. He must list out the

documents which are in his possession or

power as well as those which are not. In case

the defendant does not file any document or

copy thereof along with his written statement,

such a document shall not be allowed to be

received in evidence on behalf of the

defendant at the hearing of the suit. However,

this will not apply to a document produced for

cross examination of the plaintiff’s witnesses

or handed over to a witness merely to refresh

his memory. Subrule (3) states that a

document which is not produced at the time of

filing of the written statement, shall not be

received in evidence except with the leave of

the court.

Rule (1) of Order 13 of C.P.C. again makes it

mandatory for the parties to produce their

original documents before settlement of

issues.

8. Subrule (3), as quoted above, provides a

second opportunity to the defendant to

produce the documents which ought to have

been produced in the court along with the

written statement, with the leave of the court.

The discretion conferred upon the court to

grant such leave is to be exercised judiciously.

While there is no straight jacket formula, this

leave can be granted by the court on a good

cause being shown by the defendant.

9. It is often said that procedure is the

handmaid of justice. Procedural and technical

hurdles shall not be allowed to come in the

way of the court while doing substantial justice.

If the procedural violation does not seriously

cause prejudice to the adversary party, courts

must lean towards doing substantial justice

rather than relying upon procedural and

15  ( 2026:HHC:12212 )

technical violation. We should not forget the

fact that litigation is nothing but a journey

towards truth which is the foundation of justice

and the court is required to take appropriate

steps to thrash out the underlying truth in

every dispute. Therefore, the court should take

a lenient view when an application is made for

production of the documents under subrule

(3).”

30. The similar view has been taken by this Hon’ble

High Court in CMPMO No. 91 of 2016, Shakti Swaroop vs

Kumari Narinder Lata and another in the following manner:-

“11. Processual law is not to be a tyrant

but a servant, not an obstruction but an

aid to justice. Procedural prescriptions

are the handmaid and not the mistress,

a lubricant, not a resistant in the

administration of justice.

12. It is useful to quote the oft-quoted

passage of Lord Penzance in 1879 (4)

AC 504:

“Procedure is but the machinery of

the law after all the channel and

means whereby law is administered

and justice reached. It strongly

departs from its office when in place

of facilitating, it is permitted to

obstruct and even extinguish legal

rights, and is thus made to govern

when it ought to subserve.”

13. In the matter of Sangram Singh vs.

Election Tribunal, Kotah reported in AIR

1955, S.C. 425, the Hon’ble Apex Court

has observed as under:

16  ( 2026:HHC:12212 )

“Now a code of procedure must be

regarded as such. It is procedure,

something designed to facilitate

justice and further its ends, not a

penal enactment for punishment and

penalties; not a thing designed to

trip people up. Too technical a

construction of sections that leaves

no room for reasonable elasticity of

interpretation should therefore be

guarded against (provide always

that justice is done to both sides)

less the very means designed for

the furtherance of justice be used to

frustrate it.”

“Next, there must be ever present to

the mind the fact that our laws of

procedure are grounded on a

principle of natural justice which

requires that men should not be

condemned unheard, that decisions

should not be reached behind their

backs, that proceedings that affect

their lives and property should not

continue in their absence and that

they should not be precluded from

participating in them. Of course

there must be expectations and

where they are clearly defined they

must be given effect to. But taken by

and large, and subject to that

proviso our laws of procedure

should be construed, wherever that

is reasonably possible in the light of

that principle.”

14. No person has a vested right in any

course of procedure. He has only the right

of prosecution or defence in the manner for

the time being by or for the Court in which

the case is pending, and if, by an Act of

17  ( 2026:HHC:12212 )

Parliament the mode of procedure is

altered, he has no other right than to

proceed according to the altered mode.

(See: Blyth v. Blyth (1966 (1) All E.R. 524

(HL).

15. In Balwant Singh Bhagwan Singh and

another vs. Firm Raj Singh Baldev Kishen

reported in AIR 1969 Punjab and Haryana

197 it was held that:

“Promptitude and despatch in the

dispensation of justice is a desirable

thing but not at the cost of justice. All

rules of procedure are nothing but

handmaids of justice. They cannot be

construed in a manner, which would

hamper justice. As a general rule,

evidence should never be shut out. The

fullest opportunity should always be

given to the parties to give evidence if

the justice of the case requires it. It is

immaterial if the original omission to give

evidence or to deposit process fee

arises from negligence or carelessness.”

16. In the matter of State of Gujarat vs.

Ramprakash P. Puri, reported in 1970 (2)

SCR 875, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held

that:

“Procedure has been described to

be a hand-maid and not a mistress

of law, intended to subserve and

facilitate the cause of justice and not

to govern or obstruct it. Like all rules

of procedure, this rule demands a

construction which would promote

this cause.”

17. The processual law so dominates in

certain systems as to overpower

18  ( 2026:HHC:12212 )

substantive rights and substantial justice.

The humanist rule that procedure should

be the handmaid, not the mistress, of legal

justice compels consideration of vesting a

residuary power in judges to act ex debito

justiciae where the tragic sequel otherwise

would be wholly inequitable. - Justice is the

goal of jurisprudence–processual, as much

as substantive. (See Sushil Kumar Sen v.

State of Bihar (1975) 1 SCC 774).

18. A procedural law should not ordinarily

be construed as mandatory, the procedural

law is always subservient to and is in aid to

justice. Any interpretation which eludes or

frustrates the recipient of justice is not to be

followed. (See Shreenath and Another vs.

Rajesh and others AIR 1998 SC 1827).

19. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2007) 9

Scale 202 (R.N. Jadi & Brothers vs.

Subhash Chandra), considered the

procedural law vis-à-vis substantive law

and observed as under:

“9. All the rules of procedure are the

handmaid of justice. The language

employed by the draftsman of

processual law may be liberal or

stringent, but the fact remains that

the object of prescribing procedure

is to advance the cause of justice.

In an adversarial system, no party

should ordinarily be denied the

opportunity of participating in the

process of justice dispensation.

Unless compelled by express and

specific language of the statute, the

provisions of CPC or any other

procedural enactment ought not to

be construed in a manner which

would leave the court helpless to

19  ( 2026:HHC:12212 )

meet extraordinary situations in the

ends of justice.”

20. Procedure is only handmaid of Justice:-

All the rules of procedure are the

handmaids of justice. Any interpretation

which eludes substantive justice is not to

be followed. Observing that procedure law

is not to be a tyrant, but a servant, in

Sambhaji and others vs. Gangabai and

others (2008) 17 SCC 117, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court held as under:

“6.(14) Processual law is not to be a

tyrant but a servant, not an

obstruction but an aid to justice.

Procedural prescription is the

handmaid and not the mistress, a

lubricant, not a resistant in the

administration of justice.”

21. In 2011 (1) Scale 469 Rajendra Prasad

Gupta vs. Prakash Chandra Mishra and

others, the issue before the Hon’ble

Supreme Court was as to whether an

application will be maintainable before the

trial Court to withdraw the application filed

earlier for withdrawal of the suit. The trial

Court dismissed the application as not

maintainable. The High Court held that

once the application for withdrawal of the

suit is filed the suit stands dismissed as

withdrawn even without there being any

order on the withdrawal application and as

such another application at a later point of

time to withdraw the suit was not

maintainable. When the matter was taken

up in appeal, the Hon’ble Supreme Court

disagreed with the views expressed by the

High Court. While allowing the appeal, the

Hon’ble Supreme Court observed thus: “5.

Rules of procedure are handmaids of

20  ( 2026:HHC:12212 )

justice. Section 151 of the Code of Civil

Procedure gives inherent powers to the

court to do justice. That provision has to be

interpreted to mean that every procedure is

permitted to the court for doing justice

unless expressly prohibited, and not that

every procedure is prohibited unless

expressly permitted.”

31. The said view has been reiterated by this Court

in Civil Revision No.189 of 2025 Krishna Devi and others vs

Pari Dutt and another, relevant para of the same are as

under:-

“8. In the aforesaid backdrop, the Trial Court

subject to payment of costs allowed the

placing on record the documents. The costs

were imposed on account of lack of diligence

shown by the present respondents/ defendants

in placing on record the documents at an

appropriate stage.

9. Other than the aforesaid, the Trial Court

was of the view that the documents sought to

be placed on record are required to be proved.

Due opportunity would be given to the

petitioner/plaintiff to cross-examine the

witnesses so produced by the present

respondents for proving the two documents,

hence, no prejudice shall be caused to the

present petitioner/plaintiff by belated

production of the documents in the present

case. Thereafter, the matter has been now

posted for recording of evidence of the

respondents/defendants.”

32. Lastly, this Court in Civil Suit No. 10 of 2021,

titled as Mahesh Edible Oil Industries vs. H.P.State Civil

21  ( 2026:HHC:12212 )

Supplies Corporation Ltd., while dealing with the provisions

under Order 8 Rule 1 (A) (3) CPC has held as follows:-

9. It is apparent from the perusal of the contents

of the plaint that the agreement between the

parties, the report of the analysis, the

recommendation of the Committee, the notice

served upon the applicant/defendant and the

reply sent to the notice are the material

documents to determine whether the

applicant/defendant had acted as per the

contract or contrary to it. Hence, the relevance of

the document is prima facie established at this

stage.

10. It was submitted that there is a delay in filing

the application. It was laid down by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Sugandhi (supra) that Order 8

Rule 1-A (3) provides the second opportunity for

the defendant to produce the documents that

should have been produced with the written

statement. The procedure is a handmaid of

justice and if the procedural violation does not

cause serious prejudice to the adversary party,

the Court should accept the relevant documents

by taking a lenient view. It was observed:

“6. Rule 1-A of Order 8 CPC provides the

procedure for the production of documents by

the defendant which is as under:

“1-A. Duty of the defendant to produce

documents upon which relief is claimed or relied

upon by him.—

(1) Where the defendant bases his defence

upon a document or relies upon any document

in his possession or power, in support of his

defence or claim for set-off or counterclaim, he

shall enter such document in a list, and shall

produce it in court when the written statement is

presented by him and shall, at the same time,

deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be

filed with the written statement.

22  ( 2026:HHC:12212 )

(2) Where any such document is not in the

possession or power of the defendant, he shall,

wherever possible, state in whose possession or

power it is.

(3) 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.

(4) Nothing in this Rule shall apply to documents

—

(a) produced for the cross-

examination of the plaintiff's

witnesses, or

(b) handed over to a witness merely to

refresh his memory.”

7. Sub-rule (1) mandates the defendant to

produce the documents in his possession before

the court and file the same along with his written

statement. He must list out the documents which

are in his possession or power as well as those

which are not. In case the defendant does not

file any document or copy thereof along with his

written statement, such a document shall not be

allowed to be received in evidence on behalf of

the defendant at the hearing of the suit.

However, this will not apply to a document

produced for cross-examination of the plaintiff's

witnesses or handed over to a witness merely to

refresh his memory. Sub-rule (3) states that a

document which is not produced at the time of

filing of the written statement, shall not be

received in evidence except with the leave of the

court. Rule 1(1) of Order 13 CPC again makes it

mandatory for the parties to produce their

original documents before settlement of issues.

8. Sub-rule (3), as quoted above, provides a

second opportunity to the defendant to produce

the documents which ought to have been

produced in the court along with the written

statement, with the leave of the court. The

discretion conferred upon the court to grant such

23  ( 2026:HHC:12212 )

leave is to be exercised judiciously. While there

is no straitjacket formula, this leave can be

granted by the court on a good cause being

shown by the defendant.

9. It is often said that procedure is the handmaid

of justice. Procedural and technical hurdles shall

not be allowed to come in the way of the court

while doing substantial justice. If the procedural

violation does not seriously cause prejudice to

the adversary party, courts must lean towards

doing substantial justice rather than relying upon

procedural and technical violation. We should

not forget the fact that litigation is nothing but a

journey towards truth which is the foundation of

justice and the court is required to take

appropriate steps to thrash out the underlying

truth in every dispute. Therefore, the court

should take a lenient view when an application is

made for the production of the documents under

sub-rule (3).

14. It was submitted that there is a delay in filing

the documents and the production of the

documents should not be allowed due to the

delay. This cannot be accepted. The delay can

always be compensated in terms of the money

and is not sufficient to reject the application.”

33. In view of the exposition of law as laid down by

the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court, whereby it has

been laid down that procedural and technical hurdles shall not

be allowed to come in the way of the Court while doing

substantial justice. Therefore, the Courts must lean towards

doing substantial justice rather than relying upon the

procedural and technical violation. Therefore, the Court should

take a lenient view, when the application is made for

24  ( 2026:HHC:12212 )

production of documents under Order 8 Rule 1 (A) (3) of

CPC.

34. This Court is of the opinion that there is no

jurisdictional error by the learned trial court and has rightly

allowed the present application under Order 8 Rule 1 (A) (3) of

CPC but in the opinion of this Court to maintain balance

between the parties the cost as imposed is required to be

enhanced from Rs.2000/- to Rs.25000/-.

35. Consequently, the present petition being devoid

of any merit deserves to be dismissed with the further

direction that respondent shall pay cost of Rs.25000/- to the

petitioners on the next date of hearing before the learned trial

Court.

36. In view of the above, the present petition stands

dismissed, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if

any.

(Romesh Verma)

Judge

April 17, 2026

(Nisha)