1 2025:CGHC:18471 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 678 of 2022 1 - Bhot Ram S/o Shri Sohrai Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Harratoli Tahsil And P.S.- Shankargarh, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Somari W/o Late Pati Cherwa Aged About 75 Years R/o Village- Singchora, Tahsil And P.S.- Rajpur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh 2 - Guru S/o Late Pati Cherwa Aged About 55 Years R/o Village- Singchora, Tahsil And P.S.- Rajpur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh 3 - Suru S/o Late Pati Cherwa Aged About 52 Years R/o Village- Singchora, Tahsil And P.S.- Rajpur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh 4 - Manpatiya Bai W/o Shri Vijay Singh Aged About 45 Years R/o Rajpur, P.S. And Tahsil- Rajpur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh 5 - Anraso D/o Lutan Aged About 50 Years R/o Village- Marka, P.S. And Tahsil- Raipur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh 6 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Balrampur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh 7 - Manager Contemporary Co-Operative Agriculture And Rural Development Bank Through Branch Manager Co-Operative Central Bank Marya, Branch- Rajpur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner/defendant No.1 : Mr. Anuj Kumar Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Bhupendra Singh Advocate For respective Respondents : Mr. Sourabh Sonwani, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate REKHA SINGH Digitally signed by REKHA SINGH -2- Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 23.04.2025 1. The petitioner/defendant No.1 has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 08.08.2022 passed by Learned Civil Judge, class 2 Rajpur and allow the petitioner to submitting his documents before the Trial Court and will take on record. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Learned Civil Judge class 2 Rajpur to accept the Petitioner's document before the further hearing. 10.3 That, any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of this case may also be granted to the petitioner. 10.4 That, the cost of the petition may also be grant.” 2. The facts of the present case are that respondents No.1 to 3/ plaintiffs filed a civil suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction along with an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the CPC. 3. The defendants filed their written statement and denied the plaint averments. 4. Learned Trial Court framed issues and the matter was set for the plaintiffs’ evidence. The petitioner/defendant No.1 moved an application under Order 8 Rule 1(3) of the CPC for taking documents on record. The petitioner filed the original copy of the sale deed and other revenue documents along with the application. 3 5. Learned Trial Court vide order dated 08.08.2022 held that defendant No.1 was under an obligation to place on record those documents along with the written statement. It is further observed that without the leave of the Court, the documents cannot be admitted in evidence. It is also held that after the completion of the plaintiffs’ evidence, defendant No.1 has moved that application and reasons have not been assigned as to why documents were not produced earlier and consequently, rejected the application. 6. Mr. Pandey, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant No.1 would submit that the learned Trial Court ought to have allowed the application moved under Order 8 Rule 1(3) of the CPC. He would further submit that the documents are relevant for the just adjudication of the case. It is also contended that the documents go to the root of the case. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Pandey. 8. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Levaku Pedda Reddamma & Others. Vs. Gottumukkala Venkata Subbamma & Anr., 2022 LL SCC 533 while dealing with a similar issue held as under:- “We find that the trial Court as well as the High -4- 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.” 10. The relevancy of documents can be examined by the trial court on the basis of the evidence to be led, but depriving a party of the suit from filing documents even if there is some delay will lead to the denial of justice. It is well settled that rules of procedure are handmaid of justice. 11.Taking into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Levaku Pedda Reddamma (supra) and the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1(3) of the CPC, the application moved under Order 8 Rule 1(3) of the CPC is hereby allowed. The order dated 08.08.2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Class-II Rajpur, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) in Civil Suit No.13-A/2016, whereby the application moved by defendant No.1 was rejected, is hereby set aside and the application is allowed. 12. The interim order, if any, granted earlier is hereby vacated. 13. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha