Gujarat High Court
The Family Planning Association Of ... vs Indian Red Cross Society, Bhavnagar ... on 1 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7737/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7737 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
Yes
==========================================================
THE FAMILY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF INDIA, BHAVNAGAR & ANR.
Versus
INDIAN RED CROSS SOCIETY, BHAVNAGAR BRANCH & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PJ KANABAR(1416) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
MS MAMTA R VYAS(994) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
SERVED BY RPAD (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 01/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Ms. Mamta R. Vyas waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No.1.
2. Though served, none appears on behalf of respondent No.2, otherwise, their presence are not required to decide the present writ application. With consent of learned advocates appearing for respective parties, matter is taken up and heard finally.
Page 1 of 20 Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:06:48 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7737/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025 undefined
3. The present writ application is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief :-
"a. Your Lordships may be pleased to admit the Special Civil Application;
b. Your Lordships may further be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing and setting aside the impugned Order dated:
30/03/22, passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bhavnagar, in Regular Civil Suit No. 1358 of 2006, below application Exh.75, seeking leave to produce documents in the course of the trial of the suit as originally prayed in in the facts and the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice;
c. Pending admission hearing and final disposal of this petition Your Lordships may further be pleased to stay further proceedings of Regular Civil Suit No.1358 of 2006 pending in the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bhavnagar, to meet with the ends of justice;
d. Any other relief/s as thought fit by this Hon'ble Court may be granted."
4. The parties will be referred as far as possible as per their original position in the suit.
Short Facts of the case.
5. The petitioners herein are original defendants No. 2 & 3, whereas respondent No.1 is original plaintiff and respondent No.2 is original defendant No.1 of Regular Civil Suit No. 1358 of 2006 pending before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bhavnagar. The suit came to be filed to recover Page 2 of 20 Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:06:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7737/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025 undefined rent and also to recover vacant possession of the suit premises. The suit premises was taken by the defendant No.1 on lease which was utilized by defendants No. 2 & 3 being its branch.
5.1 The plaintiff has submitted its oral as well as documentary evidence, thereafter defendant No.1 has also led its evidence and at the stage of leading evidence of defendants No. 2 & 3, the impugned application came to be filed by defendants No. 2 & 3 below Exh. 75 in the suit, whereby defendants No. 2 & 3 requested the trial Court to allow them to submit documentary evidence and give them exhibit. Such application was opposed by the plaintiff.
5.2 After hearing the parties, the trial Court vide its order dated 30.03.2022 has rejected the impugned application, against which the present writ application is filed at the instance of defendants No. 2 & Submission of the petitioners- defendants No. 2 & 3
6. Learned advocate Mr. P.J. Kanabar for the petitioners would submit that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is erroneous, perverse and contrary to the provisions of CPC and against the settled principle of law, which Page 3 of 20 Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:06:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7737/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025 undefined requires to be interfered by this Court while exercising its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. He would further submit that the documents which are sought to be produced on record of the suit, are certified copy of the public document and already submitted in other litigation filed between the parties in court of law, thereby, such documents requires to be allowed to produce on record in the interest of justice.
6.1 Learned advocate Mr. Kanabar would further submit that reason of non-production of such documents at relevant point of time is clearly stated by defendants No. 2 & 3 in para-2 of the impugned application, inasmuch as earlier Advocates who were engaged by the defendants No.2 & 3 either discontinued his practice as Lawyer and or died during the pendency of the suit, thereby, such documents could not be produced by them.
6.2 Learned advocate Mr. Kanabar would further submit that the documents which are sought to be produced are not concocted and could not have been created by defendants No. 2 & 3 but due to unavoidable circumstances, it could not have been produced on record. He would further submit that the trial Court has completely misread and misinterpreted the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1-A (3) of CPC while Page 4 of 20 Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:06:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7737/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025 undefined rejecting the impugned application. He would further submit that the trial Court has not appreciated that documents which are sought to be produced on record are important piece of evidence, requires for effective adjudication of suit and denying its production would tantamount to closing the right of defendants No. 2 & 3 to prove its defence in the suit.
6.3 Learned advocate Mr. Kanabar would further submit that the trial Court has not appreciated that no serious prejudice would cause to the plaintiff if production of documents could have been allowed by the trial Court, inasmuch as the cross examination of defendants No. 2 & 3 are pending and if so required, the plaintiffs can always asked for reopening its right to lead evidence in the light of documents which are now sought to be produced on record, if allows to come on record. He would further submit that as per settled legal position of law, rule of procedure is hand- maid of justice and hyper technical approach on the part of the trial Court requires to be avoided as ultimately suit is nothing but journey towards truth which is hallmark of justice.
6.4 Learned advocate Mr. Kanabar would refer and rely upon the following decisions :
(i) Sugandhi (dead) by LRs & Anr v/s P Rajkumar Rep by Page 5 of 20 Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:06:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7737/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025 undefined His Power Agent Imam Oli reported in (2020) 10 SCC 706.
(ii) Levaku Pedda Reddamma and Ors. Vs. Gottumukkala Venkata Subbamaa and another reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 533.
(iii) Tata Chemical Limited Vs. Gujarat State Fertilizer and Chemicals Ltd reported in 2024 (0) AIJEL-HC 248915.
6.5 Making the above submission, learned advocate Mr. Kanabar would request this Court to allow the present writ application.
Submission of respondent No.1- original plaintiff
7. Per contra, learned advocate Ms. Mamta Vyas for the respondent No.1 would submit that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is just and proper and appropriate reasons are assigned by the trial Court while rejecting the impugned application, thereby this Court should not interfere with such order. She would further submit that defendants No. 2 & 3 have ample opportunity available to produce documents, which now sought to be produced, they should not be allowed to produce documents.
Page 6 of 20 Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:06:48 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7737/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025 undefined 7.1 Learned advocate Ms. Vyas would further submit that the suit in question is filed in the year 2006, the evidence of defendant No.1 is already over and if this Court would allow defendants No. 2 & 3 to submit new documents, the right of plaintiff would seriously prejudice and in that circumstances, the impugned application requires to be rejected which is correctly rejected by the trial Court.
7.2 Learned advocate Ms. Vyas would further submit that the explanation coming forth in the application for non- production of documents sought to be produced which is nothing but excuse and as such defendants No. 2 & 3 remained negligent all throughout of its non-production. It is submitted that payment if made by the defendants No. 2 & 3 in favour of plaintiff as per different receipts, such documents could have been easily produced by defendants No. 2 & 3 along with their written statement. Having not done so, at this stage, defendants No. 2 & 3 cannot be allowed to submit new documents.
7.3 Learned advocate Ms. Vyas would further submit that as per rule of procedure so prescribed under CPC, defendants were required to submit all documents along with their defence and at least expected to submit all documentary evidence prior to commencement of trial, Page 7 of 20 Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:06:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7737/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025 undefined which is not done by defendants No. 2 & 3. She would further submit that at this stage, if such production will be allowed in favour of defendants No. 2 & 3, right of plaintiff would be seriously prejudice inasmuch as evidence of plaintiffs was already got over.
7.4 In support of her submission, learned advocate Ms. Vyas for respondent No.1 would refer and rely upon the following decisions :-
(i) Bagai Construction through its Proprietor Mr. Lalit Bagai Vs. Gupta Building Material Store reported in (2013) 14 SCC 1.
(ii) Adama India Private Limited Vs. S.S. Packaging Industries Pvt. Ltd. passed by the Delhi High Court in CM(M) No. 988/2025 on 26.05.2025.
(iii) Sandhya Sunil Kharde and Ors. Vs. Sarita S. Kharde and Ors. passed by the Bombay High Court at Goa in Writ Petition No. 502 of 2023(F) on 27.06.2024.
Point for determination
8. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the trial Court has committed any gross error of law Page 8 of 20 Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:06:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7737/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025 undefined and or jurisdictional error by not allowing defendants No. 2 & 3 to submit documents at the time of their oral evidence?
ANALYSIS
9. The facts which are narrated hereinabove are not in dispute. The impugned application filed by defendants No. 2 & 3 seeking leave of the trial Court, thereby requested that to allow defendants No. 2 & 3 to submit their documents and it may be exhibited. Such application appears to have been filed under Order VIII Rule 1-A (3) of CPC, as such the trial Court has not granted leave in favour of defendants no. 2 & 3, thereby not permitted them to submit documents as prayed for and consequently, the impugned application of defendants No. 2 & 3 came to be rejected.
9.1 To appreciate and understand the provisions of law more particularly Order VIII Rule 1-A (3) of CPC which is reproduced herein below.
"Order VIII Rule 1-A -
Duty of defendant to produce documents upon which relief is claimed or relied upon by him.
(3) A document which ought to be produced in court by the defendant under this rule, but, is not so produced shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing Page 9 of 20 Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:06:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7737/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025 undefined of the suit;."
9.2 The plain reading of the aforesaid provisions more particularly under Order VIII Rule 1-A (3) of CPC would indicate that with the leave of the Court, the defendant is permitted to produce documents which it has not produced at relevant point of time.
9.3 It is true that as per the Order VIII Rule (1) read with Order XIII Rule 1 of CPC, defendant requires to produce documents in his possession or power along with his written statement and produce its original on or before settlement of issues. Nonetheless, by way of amendment of CPC, Order VIII Rule 1-A (3) incorporated, thereby with leave of the Court, the defendant can produce documents which he could not produce along with his statement of defence.
9.4 The plain reading of Order VIII Rule 1-A (3) of CPC would indicate that such leave of Court can be granted when at the time of hearing of suit, defendant wants to produce documents which he could not produce it earlier, such stage must not be later than stage of hearing of the suit. It would be profitable to take note of the title of Order XVIII of CPC which captioned as under :-
Page 10 of 20 Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:06:48 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7737/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025 undefined "Hearing of the suit and examination of witness."
9.5 Thus, in view of the under Order VIII Rule 1-A (3) read with Order XVIII of CPC, at the time of leading oral evidence by party to suit i.e. hearing of suit, such leave application be it under Order VIII Rule 1-A (3) and or Order VII Rule 14 (4) can be filed by the defendants or plaintiffs respectively, whereby request Court to permit to produce documents which could not be produced at time of submitting pleading and or settlement of issues as the case may be.
10. So, in view of the aforesaid provisions of law, applied to the facts of the present case, it would not be appropriate to say that defendants have filed documents not at the time of hearing of the suit. The production of documents though filed at a belated stage i.e. at the time of hearing of suit and at the stage of recording evidence of defendants No. 2 & 3 but considering the object of Order VIII Rule 1-A (3) of CPC which is inserted by way of amendment in CPC, production of such documents could not have been denied to defendants No. 2 & 3.
11. It is true that defendants could have been submitted documents while submitting their written statement as most of the documents are as such older than suit which are now sought to be produced on record of suit but that would not Page 11 of 20 Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:06:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7737/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025 undefined ipso-facto disentitle defendant Nos. 2 & 3 not to produce it at the time of hearing of suit i.e. at the time of recording their evidence. The cause of non-production of the documents can not be brush aside in light of the fact that defendant Nos. 2 & 3 both are legal entity would have dependent upon its lawyer who either discontinued practice and or died during pendency of suit, thereby such documents could not have been placed on record. Such crucial aspect of the matter is completely lost sight by the trial Court and though reproduced Order VIII Rule 1-A (3) of CPC in impugned order but in fact committed serious error of law in not properly interpreting such provision, which ultimately resulted into miscarriage of justice.
12. The observation of the trial Court to the effect that a serious prejudice would cause to plaintiff and defendant No.1 if production of documents at the instance of defendants No. 2 & 3 would be allowed and the same is filed at a very belated stage without any proper explanation on the part of defendants No. 2 & 3 who must have been possessed such documents, may be valid observation but at the time, the aforesaid provisions of CPC and coupled with the fact that documents sought to be produced which claimed to be part of evidence of other court proceedings between the parties, thereby its genuineness cannot be Page 12 of 20 Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:06:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7737/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025 undefined doubted as it is not a private documents and mere delay in production would not ipso facto ground to deny production otherwise said provision become otiose. This aspect of the matter is completely lost sight by the trial Court while rejecting the impugned application.
13. Apart from the aforesaid, it is now well settled legal position of law that rule of procedure is hand-maid of justice and hyper technical approach required to be avoided by the trial Court especially when parties seeking leave of Court to submit the documents. It is also well settled that mere production of document would not automatically its proving as such the document is required to be proved in accordance with law.
14. It would be apposite to refer and rely upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sugandhi (dead) by LRs & Anr v/s P Rajkumar Rep by His Power Agent Imam Oli reported in (2020) 10 SCC 706, wherein held as under :
"[9] It is often said that procedure is the handmaid of justice. Procedural and technical hurdles shall not be allowed to come in the way of the court while doing substantial justice. If the procedural violation does not seriously cause prejudice to the adversary party, courts must lean towards doing substantial justice rather than relying upon procedural and technical violation. We should not forget the fact that litigation is nothing but a journey towards truth which is the Page 13 of 20 Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:06:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7737/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025 undefined foundation of justice and the court is required to take appropriate steps to thrash out the underlying truth in every dispute....."
15. It would also apt to refer and rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Levaku Pedda Reddamma and Ors. Vs. Gottumukkala Venkata Subbamaa and another reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 533, wherein also it has observed and held thus :-
"The defendant Nos.2 to 5 are in appeal aggrieved against the order passed by the High Court affirming the order passed by the trial Court refusing to permit the appellant to produce additional documents in terms of Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
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.
Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The orders passed by the trial Court and the High Court are set aside. The appellants - defendant Nos.2 to 5 are permitted to file the documents and to prove the same in accordance with law.
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 Page 14 of 20 Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:06:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7737/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025 undefined evidence produced by the plaintiff."
16. Further, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Tata Chemical Limited Vs. Gujarat State Fertilizer and Chemicals Ltd reported in 2024 (0) AIJEL-HC 248915 in a similar factual situation has allowed production of documents which was sought to be produced at belated stage, albeit, produced it before completion of trial, held thus:-
"14. One of the limb of argument was that if the production of the document would be permitted, it would restart the trial. This submission has no legs to stand. The document which the GSFC intended to produce or has successfully produced in some cases, as observed herein above, were known to the parties since the beginning of the plaint. Even, evidence to that effect is also lead.
15. The test of relevancy, which is the pioneer in production of the document is also reside with the GSFC or are rather aligned with the cause of action stated in the plaint. These documents which are certified copies of the proceedings and orders taken by the GSFC against the Central Excise are core to the dispute between the parties and they are required document to arrive at just decision.
16. To be noted that the Court is clothed with the power to allow production of additional evidence even at the appellate stage provided that such documentary evidence is necessary to enable the Court to pronounce the judgment. The production of the additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC is permissible even at the appellate stage. Thus, relevancy of document, which intended to be produced is at core or cynosure
17. According to this Court, the document, which the GSFC sought to produce or already produced in some civil cases are relevant and would enable the Court to pronounce the judgment. What also could Page 15 of 20 Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:06:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7737/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025 undefined be noticed from the documents which the GSFC intended to produce or successfully produced in some of the cases are orders of the High Court and the Excise Tribunal on the proof that the GSFC has paid excise duty demanded by the excise department. Thus, they are relevant as observed earlier. The test of bona fide also preface in favour of the GSFC. In para 8 of the petition, the GSFC submitted that the documents, which are very old one and certified copies were not available as the files were with the employee, who had left the service of organization. In view of above, this Court finds substance in the plea of the GSFC to allow it to produce documents. Consequent thereto, this Court does not find any infirmity in the order passed below Exh.234 in Special Civil Suit No.272 of 1976 and order passed below Exh.1163 in Special Civil Suit No.318 of 1975 and as such, Special Civil Applications challenging those orders being Special Civil Application Nos.14807 of 2015 and 12440 of 2018 respectively fail. As far as order passed below Exh.247 in Special Civil Suit No.107 of 1976, whereby production of document is denied, this Court finds that serious, but jurisdictional error has been committed by the learned Court below and therefore, that order has to go and as such, Special Civil Application No.3981 of 2013 challenging said order succeeds."
17. Thus, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case as well as harmonious construction of the provisions of CPC referred to hereinabove and so also relying upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the order impugned in the present writ application requires to be interfered by this Court, as the trial Court has committed serious error of law by refusing production of documents filed by defendants No. 2 & 3.
18. So far as the decisions which are referred and relied by learned advocate Ms. Mamta Vyas for respondent No.1 is Page 16 of 20 Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:06:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7737/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025 undefined concerned, there is no cavil that to fill lacuna in the evidence, the party should not be allowed to re-examine the witness and accordingly permitted to submit documents inasmuch as if any right accrued /vested in the opponent cannot be taken away very casually.
19. As such the ratio of decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bagai Construction through its Proprietor Mr. Lalit Bagai (supra) would not stricto sensu applied to the facts germane in the present case. Inasmuch as the issue before the Hon'ble Apex Court is completely different than the case on hand, as it appears that in the said case comes before the Hon'ble Apex Court, question of recalling of witness thereby to submit some documents was paramount consideration, whereas in the present case on hand, the defendants No. 2 & 3 are yet to submit their oral evidence and before that, they are seeking leave of the trial Court to allow them to submit documents. Both the issues are stand on different footing resultantly the ratio in the case of Bagai Construction through its Proprietor Mr. Lalit Bagai (supra) would not be apply to the facts of the present case.
20. Likewise, the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Adama India Private Limited (supra) and so also the decision of Bombay High Court, at Goa in the case of Page 17 of 20 Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:06:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7737/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025 undefined Sandhya Sunil Kharde (supra) would not be applicable as in the case of Adama India Private Limited (supra), the Delhi High Court had not considered the ratio laid by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sugandhi (supra), whereas in the case of Sandhya Sunil Kharde (supra), the issue was again in regards to recall of the witness which is not the case on hand then not applied as explained above.
21. Thus, in view of the aforesaid, submissions which are made by the learned advocate Ms. Vyas for respondent No.1 are hereby rejected as not in-consonance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and so also contrary to object & purpose of the provision of Order VIII Rule 1-A (3) read with Order XVIII of CPC.
Conclusion
22. The upshot of the aforesaid observations and reasons, would lead to only one conclusion that the impugned order suffers from gross error of law inasmuch as the trial Court has without properly interpreting the aforesaid provisions of CPC rejected the impugned application thereby committed jurisdictional error which requires to be corrected by this Court in order to keep the subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority while exercising its power under Page 18 of 20 Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:06:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7737/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025 undefined Article 227 of the Constitution of India (See : Waryam Singh v/s Amarnath - AIR 1954 SC 215).
23. When this Court is interfering with the impugned order passed by the trial Court, consequently the documents which are sought to be produced by defendants No. 2 & 3 vide its impugned application at Exh. 75 is hereby allowed to be produced on the record of the suit, albeit, not order to be exhibited at this stage, which is required to be proved by defendants No. 2 & 3 in accordance with law.
24. As leading of evidence by plaintiffs and defendant No.1 were already over, when this Court allows defendants No. 2 & 3 to produce new documents, as per decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Levaku Pedda Reddamma (supra), this Court permit the plaintiffs and defendant no.1 to lead their additional evidence, if any, before defendant No.2 & 3 will be given any opportunity to lead their oral evidence to refer their documentary evidence now allow to be produced on record of suit. The trial Court may allow the plaintiffs and defendant no.1 to lead their respective evidence only to meet with new documents which are allowed to be produced on record.
25. This Court though allow production of documents by Page 19 of 20 Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:06:48 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7737/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2025 undefined defendants No. 2 & 3 but it cannot oblivious of the fact that due to such late production of documents at the instance of defendants No. 2 & 3, trial of suit gets derailed as suit filed in the year 2006 then, defendants No. 2 & 3 require to pay costs which is quantified to Rs. 10,000/- to be deposited by defendants No. 2 & 3 with GLSA, Bhavnagar within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
26. The trial Court shall see to it that defendants No. 2 & 3 first deposit such cost as a condition precedent for production of documents in question allow to be produced by this Court.
27. The impugned application filed below Exh.75 in Regular Civil Suit No. 1358 of 2006 is hereby partly allowed to aforesaid extent subject to payment of aforesaid cost, then- after defendants No. 2 & 3 are allowed to produce documents which are sought to be produced by way of impugned application. Such documents be exhibited once defendants No. 2 & 3 prove it in accordance with law.
28. In view of the above, the present writ application is partly allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent with cost aforesaid. Sd/-
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J) SALIM/ Page 20 of 20 Uploaded by SALIM(HC01108) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:06:48 IST 2025