1 2025:CGHC:15843 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 305 of 2025  Smt. Yashoda Devi Jaiswal W/o Shri Ramesh Jaiswal Aged About 55 Years R/o 132, Arihant Nagar, Sarona Chowk, Raipur, Tehsil And District- Raipur (C.G.) Through Its Power Of Attorney Holder Shri Ramesh Jaiswal, S/o Kunjbihari Jaiswal, Aged About 60 Years, R/o 132, Arihant Nagar, Sarona Chowk, Raipur, Tehsil And District- Raipur (Power Of Attorney Executed On 15-01-2025) (Defendent No. 1) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Agnishwar Day S/o Shipan Day Aged About 28 Years R/o Mana Camp Raipur, Tehsil And District- Raipur (C.G.) (Plaintiff No. 1) 2. Abhijit S/o Shipan Day Aged About 24 Years R/o Mana Camp Raipur, Tehsil And District- Raipur (C.G.) (Plaintiff No. 2) 3. Smt. Hena Day W/o Shipan Day Aged About 50 Years R/o Mana Camp Raipur, Tehsil And District- Raipur (C.G.) (Plaintiff No. 3) 4. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, District- Raipur (C.G.) (Defendant No. 3) ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Sandeep Dubey, Advocate For State : Mr. Prateek Tiwari, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 04. 04.2025 1. The petitioner/defendant No. 1 has filed this petition against the order dated 12.03.2025 passed by the First Additional Judge to the Court of First Civil Judge, Senior Division, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) in Civil Suit No. 154A/2017, whereby an application moved under Order 8 Rule 1(3) of CPC has been rejected. SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.04.09 14:17:39 +0530 2 2. The plaintiffs/respondents No. 1 and 2 filed a Civil Suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction with respect to land bearing survey No. 17/31 and 17/32 admeasuring 0.106 and 0.016 hectare respectively. The defendants filed their written statement. After completion of the plaintiffs’ evidence, defendant No. 1 moved an application under Order 8 Rule 1A (3) of CPC read with Section 151 of CPC for taking the power of attorney on behalf of defendant No. 1 on record. 3. The plaintiff filed a reply to the said application. It is stated in the reply that on 15.01.2025, the case was set for evidence of defendant No. 1. It is further stated that defendant No. 1 failed to lead evidence and submitted evidence of one Ramesh Jaiswal, Son of Kunj Bihari Jaiswal on the affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC. It is also stated that Ramesh Jaiswal is not a party to the litigation. It is also stated that the written statement was filed by one Dinesh Kumar Jaiswal on 22.10.2018 and the power of attorney was not produced at that stage. Considering the reply, the learned trial Court rejected the application. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the learned trial Court ought to have allowed the application. He would further submit that the power of attorney would not change the nature of the case and its relevancy can be examined by the trial Court on the basis of evidence to be led. He would pray to set-aside the order passed by the learned trial Court. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 7. From a perusal of the documents placed on the record, it appears that an application under Order 8 Rule 1 A (3) of CPC for taking the power of attorney on record was moved by defendant No. 1 on 15.01.2025. The 3 learned trial Court rejected the application on the ground that defendant No. 1 herself had not filed the written statement and it was filed by one Dinesh Jaiswal. It is also held that the power of attorney was not produced along with the written statement on 22.10.2018. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1A (3) of CPC, in the matter of Sugandhi (dead) by Lrs. V. P. Rajkumar, reported in (2020) 4 Cur CC 217:: (2020) 4 Civil Court Case 378, observed and held in para 10 which reads as under:- “10. Coming to the present case, the defendants have filed an application assigning cogent reasons for not producing the documents along with the written statement. They have stated that these documents were missing and were only traced at a later stage. It cannot be disputed that these documents are necessary for arriving at a just decision in the suit. We are of the view that the Courts below ought to have granted leave to produce these documents.” 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Levaku Pedda Reddamma& Ors. Vs. Gottumukkala Venkata Subbamma & Anr. passed in Civil Appeal No. 4096 of 2022 [@SLP (C) No. 7452/2022] held as under:- “We find that the trial Court as well as the High Court have gravely erred in law in not permitting the defendants to produce documents, the relevance of which can be examined by the trial Court on the basis of the evidence to be led, but to deprive a party to the suit not to file documents even if there is some delay will lead to denial of justice. It is well settled that rules of procedure are hand-maid of justice and, therefore, even if there is some delay, the trial Court should have imposed some costs rather than to decline the production of the documents itself. Mr. Nazki states that the plaintiffs-respondents should 4 be permitted to lead additional evidence, if any, on the basis of the documents now produced by the defendants. We accept the request. The plaintiff shall lead additional evidence, if any, before the defendants are given an opportunity to lead evidence to rebut the evidence produced by the plaintiff. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.” 10. Taking into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the facts of the present case, the order dated 12.03.2025 passed by the learned trial Court is hereby set-aside and the application moved by the defendant No. 1 under Order 8 Rule 1A (3) of CPC is hereby allowed. 11. It is made clear that the admissibility and reliability of the said document shall be considered by the learned trial Court on its own merits. 12. Accordingly, this petition is hereby disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant