[2025:RJ-JP:43816] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16511/2025 Shuchindra Sharma S/o Shri A.N. Sharma, aged about 65 Years, R/o C-48, Sethi Colony, Transport Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Petitioner/Plaintiff Versus Rajesh Motors (Car) Pvt. Ltd., Unique Destination Building, Near Nehru Garden, Tonk Road, Jaipur Pin-302015, Rajasthan Through Manager/director ----Respondent/Defendant For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 01/11/2025 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the order dated 07.10.2025 passed by the Judge, Commercial Court No.3, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, whereby the application filed under Order 8 Rule 1(3) CPC read with Section 151 CPC filed by the respondent-defendant has been allowed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the documents-in-question i.e. the authority letter dated 05.08.2022 and employee identity card were not filed earlier and they have been filed just to fill up the lacunae, therefore, the Trial Court has committed an error in allowing the application filed under Order 8 Rule 1(3) CPC read with Section 151 CPC; and prayed that the impugned order dated 07.10.2025 may kindly be set aside. 3. Heard and considered the submissions submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. [2025:RJ-JP:43816] (2 of 3) [CW-16511/2025] 4. From the perusal of the record, it is evident that though the written statement was filed by one Pawan Kumar Sharma, who has filed an affidavit along with the written-statement and also filed an affidavit in evidence; but due to a bona fide mistake, the respondent could not file the authority letter dated 05.08.2022 and the employee identity card along with the written-statement. 5. It is trite law that the rules of procedure are the handmaid of justice. When there is a conflict between procedural technicalities and the cause of substantial justice, the latter must prevail. Therefore, the learned Trial Court, after taking a holistic view of the matter, has permitted the respondent-defendant to place both the documents on record, in order to do substantial justice between the parties. 6. Even otherwise, while taking the said documents on record, the learned Court below has also considered the aspect of delay in filing the same, and directed the respondent to deposit a cost of Rs.20,000/-. 7. It is also evident that the respondent has already paid the said cost, and the additional documents viz the authority letter dated 05.08.2022 and the employee identity card have already been taken on record. Thus, once the court has exercised a jurisdiction to take certain documents on record which are relevant for the adjudication of Lis, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. 8. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, perversity, or legal infirmity so as to call for any interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. [2025:RJ-JP:43816] (3 of 3) [CW-16511/2025] 9. Accordingly, the present writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 10. All other pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J SOURAV /6