1 2025:CGHC:44223 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 864 of 2025 1. Rajesh Bhuwal, S/o Bhagwat Singh Bhuwal Aged About 48 Years R/o - Manpur, P.O.- Atariya Road, Tahsil Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (Defendant No. 01) 2. Rekha, D/o- Bhagwat Singh Bhuwal, Aged About 52 Years R/o- Mig- 781/782, Housing Board Colony, Veer Savarkar Nagar, Heerapur, Tatibandh, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.) (Defendant No. 02) 3. Karishma Thakur, W/o- Shri Alankar Singh Thakur, Aged About 27 Years R/o- Mig- 781/782, Housing Board Colony, Veer Savarkar Nagar, Heerapur, Tatibandh, Raipur, Tahsil And District - Raipur (C.G.) (Defendant No. 03) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Rakhi Chauhan, D/o Bhagwat Chauhan, Aged About 45 Years R/o Gayatri Colony, Kamla College Road, Koronbhatha, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (Plaintiff) 2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Bemetara, District Bemetara (C.G.) (Defendant No. 04) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. Vivek Ranjan Tiwari, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Atul Kesharwani, Advocate For State : Mr. Topilal Bareth, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 01-09-2025 Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.09.02 14:23:04 +0530 2 1) Petitioners have filed this petition assailing the order passed by the learned Additional Judge to First Civil Judge - Senior Division Saja, District - Bemetara in Civil Suit No. 23-A/2021 dated 30.07.2025 whereby the application moved under Order 8 Rule 1 (3) of CPC has been rejected. 2) Learned counsel for the petitioners/ defendants submits that respondent No. 1/ plaintiff filed a civil suit for declaration of title, permanent injunction, partition and separate possession in respect to four lands ad-measuring 1.56 hectare situated at Village – Sonpandar, P.H. No. – 22, Tehsil & District – Bemetara. He further submits that during pendency of the suit, petitioners moved application under Order 8 Rule 1 (3) of CPC for taking copy of Family relinquishment deed on record which was executed during pendency of civil suit and same has been rejected by the trial Court on the ground that the said document seemed unreliable overlooking the fact that the said document is xerox of a registered document. He contends that learned trial Court ought to have allowed the application as reliability and relevancy of documents can be examined by the trial Court on the basis of evidence to be led. He prays to allow this petition. 3) On the other hand, learned State counsel supports the order impugned. 4) Heard. 5) The Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 (3) of CPC, in the matter of Sugandhi (dead) by 3 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.” 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 4 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.” 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 30.07.2025 passed by the learned trial Court is hereby set-aside and the application moved by the petitioner under Order 8 Rule 1 (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