1 2025:CGHC:19020 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 86 of 2025 1 - M/s Shiv Shakti Construction D Class Electrical Contractor (C.G. Pwd Rajnandgaon ) Durga Chowk Near Saw Mill, Police Station Basantpur Rajnandgaon Tahsil And District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Through Proprietor Manish Pansari S/o Hukumchand Pansari Aged About 40 Years (Non - Applicant No. 2 ) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Amol Das Sahu S/o Bhajan Lal Sahu Aged About 54 Years R/o House No. 97, Ward No. 17 Village Gatapar Post Dhangaon District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (Applicants) 2 - Smt. Sushila Sahu W/o Amol Das Sahu Aged About 45 Years R/o House No. 97, Ward No. 17 Village Gatapar Post Dhangaon District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 3 - Kumari Ranjita Sahu D/o Amol Das Sahu Aged About 23 Years R/o House No. 97, Ward No. 17 Village Gatapar Post Dhangaon District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 4 - Public Works Department (B/r Division B/r Division Rajnandgaon Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Through Superintendent / Executive Engineer (Non - Applicant No. 1) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate For State/ Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Lav Sharma, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 28-04-2025 2 1) Petitioner has filed this petition assailing the order passed by the learned Second District and Additional Sessions Judge, Labour Court, Rajnandgaon in Case No. 03/EC Act/2018/F dated 27.03.2025 whereby the application moved under Order 8 Rule 1A (3) of CPC has been rejected. 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondents No. 1 to 3 moved application under Section 22 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 for grant of compensation on account of death of one Deepak Sahu. He further submits that during pendency of the application, petitioner moved application under Order 8 Rule 1A (3) of CPC and same has been rejected by the trial Court on the ground that application has been moved at a belated stage. He contends that learned trial Court ought to have allowed the application as relevancy of documents can be examined by the trial Court on the basis of evidence to be lead. He prays to allow this petition. 3) On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes. He submits that application moved under Order 8 Rule 1A (3) of CPC was moved at a belated stage without explaining delay. He further submits that relevancy of documents was not disclosed, therefore, learned trial Court rightly rejected the application. 4) Heard. 5) 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 3 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.” 6) 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 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.” 4 7) Taking into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court in the matters of Sugandhi (supra) and Levaku Pedda Reddamma (supra) and the facts of the present case, the order dated 27.03.2025 passed by the learned trial Court is hereby set-aside and the application moved by the petitioner under Order 8 Rule 1A (3) of CPC is hereby allowed. 8) 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. 9) Accordingly, this petition is hereby disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya