-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 505 of 2022 1. Manoj Kumar Chandrabanshi, aged about 48 years, Son of Late Shyam Sundar Chandrabanshi, Resident of Ward No. 3, Village Kalyanpur, P.O.- Kalyanpur, P.S. & Dist.- Garhwa. 2. Kabir Ansari, aged about 71 years, Son of Late Abdul Ansari, Resident of Ward No. 6, Village Kalyanpur, P.O.-Kalyanpur, P.S. & Dist.- Garhwa. ..... … Petitioners Versus Prabhu Narayan Vishwakarma, Son of Late Ramchariter Vishwakarma, Resident of Village-Juti, P.O.-Kalyanpur, P.S. and Dist. Garhwa. ..... … Opposite Parties -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Niraj Kishore, Advocate. : Mrs. Shobha Rani, Advocate. For the sole O.P. : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, Advocate. ------ 41/ 10.03.2025 Heard Mr. Niraj Kishore, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the sole opposite party. 2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order dated 24.05.2022, passed in O.S. No. 176 of 2020 by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division)-I, Garhwa, by which, the petition filed under Order-VI, Rule-17, read with Section 151 and 153 of the CPC for amendment in para-8 for bringing sale deed No. 8576 dated 01.10.2004 of Khata No. 165, Plot No. 2010 of village-Kalyanpur, District-Garhwa has been rejected by the learned court. 3. Mr. Niraj Kishore, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that plaintiff / respondent instituted Title Suit No. 29 of 2009 before the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.)-I, Garhwa against the defendants/petitioners for declaration of his right, title and interest over the schedule land of the plot pertaining to Khata No. 165, Plot No. -2- 2010, Area 0.07, 1/2 acres of land of village Kalyanpur, Dist. Garhwa. He submits that upon notice, the petitioners-defendants have appeared and filed their written statement. He further submits that in course of the trial, it appears that sale deed No. 8576 dated 01.10.2004 has been executed with regard to the land in question and on the basis of that the possessions of petitioners-defendants have been tried to be dispossessed, in view of that the said petition has been filed praying therein to allow to bring on record the said sale deed, however the learned court has been pleased to reject the said prayer. 4. Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the sole opposite party has opposed the prayer and submits that belatedly the said petition was filed, in view of that the learned court has rightly rejected the same. 5. In the interest of justice any document for deciding the suit can be allowed at the discretion of the court and not permitting the defendants to produce documents will amount to take away the right and further the relevance of which can be examined by the learned 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. 6. It is well settled that the rules of procedure are the handmaid of justice, and even if there is some delay, the trial court should have impose some cost rather than to decline the production of the document itself. 7. In view of the above, the petition filed under Order-VI, Rule-17, read with Section 151 and 153 of the CPC for amendment in para-8 for bringing sale deed No. 8576 dated 01.10.2004 of Khata No. 165, Plot No. 2010 of village-Kalyanpur, District-Garhwa, is hereby, allowed, subject to the payment of cost of Rs. 2,000/- to be paid to the plaintiff by the defendant. -3- 8. As such, the order dated 24.05.2022, passed in O.S. No. 176 of 2020 by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division)-I, Garhwa, by which, the petition filed under Order-VI, Rule-17, read with Section 151 and 153 of the CPC for amendment in para-8 for bringing sale deed No. 8576 dated 01.10.2004 of Khata No. 165, Plot No. 2010 of village- Kalyanpur, District-Garhwa has been rejected by the learned court, is hereby, set aside. 9. The parties will be at liberty to lead their evidence on the said document and the relevance of that can be examined by the learned trial court. 10. With the above observation, this petition is allowed and disposed of. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Amitesh/-