IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMPMO No. 222 of 2021 Decided on: 17.09.2025 ____________________________________________________ JHS SVENDGAARD HYGIENE PRODUCTS and Anr. ……….. Petitioners Versus M/s Gupta Electricals ……….respondents ____________________________________________________ Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioners : Mr. Vishal Bindra, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Ashok Kumar Tyagi, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ Bipin Chander Negi, Judge ( oral) 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. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 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 electrical 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 the 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 3 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 record, moreso, when their evidence has been closed. 6. Trial 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. 4 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 entail automatic dismissal or rejection, unless the relevant statute or rule so mandates. Procedural defects and irregularities which are curable should not be allowed to defeat substantive rights or to cause injustice. Procedure, a hand-maiden to justice, should never be made a tool to deny justice or perpetuate injustice, by any oppressive or punitive use. The well recognized exceptions to this principle are :- i) where the Statute prescribing the procedure, also prescribes specifically the consequence of noncompliance. ii) where the procedural defect is not rectified, even after it is pointed out and due opportunity is given for rectifying it; iii) where the non-compliance or violation is proved to be deliberate or mischievous; iv) where the rectification of defect would affect the case on merits or will affect the jurisdiction of the court. v) in case of Memorandum of Appeal, there is complete absence of authority and the appeal is presented without the knowledge, consent and authority of the appellant;” 8. In the case at hand, insofar as the bills now sought to be placed on record are concerned, a mention of the same had been made in paragraph No. 3 of the plaint. However, the documents were not filed along with the plaint, nor at the time of filing of the replication or at the time of settlement of issues. The 5 case was listed for recording of evidence of the respondent/plaintiff on 10.06.2019. On 11.07.2019 and 09.08.2019, no evidence of the respondent/plaintiff was present. Thereafter, on 12.09.2019 one affidavit of a witness had been filed and the trial Court had listed the matter for cross- examination of the said witness, but on 07.11.2019, none was present to be cross-examined on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff. Subsequent thereto, the matter was fixed for cross-examination of PWS on 17.12.2019, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 500/-. On 17.12.2019, none was present for being cross-examined. On 18.02.2020, one PW Jai Prakash Gupta was examined and thereafter, the respondent/plaintiff closed their evidence. It is only after closing of the evidence that the present application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC was filed on 16.03.2020. 9. In the aforesaid factual matrix wherein procedural lapses on the part of the petitioners/defendants are writ large, issue to be considered is as to whether application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC for placing on record the documents in the case at hand should be allowed. 10. The documents now sought to be placed on record are bills raised by the respondent/plaintiff which according to the respondent/plaintiff have remained unpaid and details of the 6 same have been given in paragraph No. 3 of the plaint. The same are a bone of contention inter-se the parties and they are relevant for adjudication of the real issue in the case at hand. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court reported as 1994 (4) SCC 659, titled Billa Jagan Mohan Reddy & Anr. Vs. Billa Sanjeeva Reddy & Ors. The relevant extract is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:- “4………… It is undoubted that there is a delay in production of the said documents. But the trial court had stated that the application was filed at the stage of arguments, seeking to produce those documents and sought to rely upon the documents. It is settled law that, if the documents are found to be relevant to decide the real issue in the controversy, and when the court felt that interest of justice requires that the documents may be received, exercising the power under Order 4 1, Rule 27 CPC the appellate court would receive the documents and consider their effect thereof. When such is the position, when the documents are sought to be produced in the trial court, before the arguments are completed, normally they may be received; an opportunity given to prove them and rebuttal if any and their relevance and effect they may have, be considered in deciding the issues arising in the controversy. Under these circumstances, the trial court was not justified in refusing to condone the delay and to receive the documents.” 11. In terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court, normally if a document is relevant to decide the real controversy in issue, then even if it is produced before the arguments are completed, the same should be received in evidence and an opportunity given to prove them and rebuttal, if any. 7 12. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the legal position enunciated by the Apex Court especially in Billa Jagan Mohan Reddy’s case cited supra, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court. However, in view of the direction proposed to be passed, I deem it necessary to discuss the scope and ambit of jurisdiction exercised by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 13. Supervisory jurisdiction, is available keep the tribunals and courts subordinate to it, “within the bounds of their authority”. When a subordinate court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have or the jurisdiction though available is being exercised by the court in a manner not permitted by law and failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned thereby, the High Court may step in to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction. 14. Supervisory jurisdiction, is not available to correct mere errors of fact or of law unless the following requirements are satisfied: (i) the error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law, and (ii) a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby. 8 15. Care, caution and circumspection need to be exercised, when supervisory jurisdiction is sought to be invoked during the pendency of any suit or proceedings in a subordinate court and the error though calling for correction is yet capable of being corrected at the conclusion of the proceedings in an appeal or revision preferred there against and entertaining a petition invoking certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court would obstruct the smooth flow and/or early disposal of the suit or proceedings. The High Court may feel inclined to intervene where the error is such, as, if not corrected at that very moment, may become incapable of correction at a later stage and refusal to intervene would result in travesty of justice. 16. The object of superintendence, both administrative and judicial, is to maintain efficiency, smooth and orderly functioning of the entire machinery of justice in such a way as it does not bring it into any disrepute. The power of interference under this article is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and courts subordinate to the High Court. 17. This reserve and exceptional power of judicial intervention is not to be exercised just for grant of relief in 9 individual cases but should be directed for promotion of public confidence in the administration of justice in the larger public interest whereas Article 226 is meant for protection of individual grievance. Therefore, the power under Article 227 may be unfettered but its exercise is subject to high degree of judicial discipline. An improper and a frequent exercise of this power will be counterproductive and will divest this extraordinary power of its strength and vitality. 18. Though the present petition has been dismissed, however, in the interest of justice, I deem it appropriate to direct the learned Court below to afford an opportunity to the respondent/plaintiff to lead evidence to prove the documents placed on record. Not more than two opportunities shall be afforded to the respondent/plaintiff to lead evidence to prove the documents now placed on record. Evidence shall be brought by the respondent/plaintiff on self responsibility. The needful be done/concluded, subject to the convenience of the Court within three months from 15.10.2025. Thereafter, the matter be posted for recording of evidence of the petitioners/defendants. 19. For the aforesaid opportunity afforded to the respondent/plaintiff to lead evidence to prove the documents placed on record, the respondent/plaintiff shall deposit costs quantified at Rs.25,000/-, in the case at the hand, to be deposited 10 in the “Chief Justice Disaster Relief Fund 2025, Bank Name: UCO Bank, Account No. 18330110060070, IFSC Code: UCBA0001833, Branch: High Court Complex, Shimla”, receipt thereof be produced before the learned trial Court on the date fixed for appearance therein. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 15.10.2025 (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge September 17th, 2025 Susheel