MOTI RAM Vs. ROSHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the impugned order dated 18.4.2002 the learned trial Court has rejected the petitioner application filed under Order 12 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that the plaintiffs/petitioners had not served notice upon respondent No.1 with respect to admission or denial of the documents as was contemplated in terms of Form No.9 in Appendix -C of the Code of Civil Procedure, the learned trial Court did not exercise its suo motu power as per Rule 3 -A of Order 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I feel that the learned trial, Court was influenced more by technical considerations than by the substantial part of the dispute between the parties. The petitioner had filed application in terms of order 12 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil procedure calling upon the respondent/defendants to record admission or denial with respect to certain documents. Undoubtedly, Rule 3 does contemplate that a notice to admit documents would be in Form No. 9 in Appendix -C, but in a case where the defendant had sufficient opportunity and reasonable information with respect to the documents sought to be admitted, the neglect on the part of the plaintiffs in serving the notice specifically in Form No. 9 should not jeopardise the interests of the plaintiffs and this cannot be a ground and in ordinary circumstances should not be a ground for rejecting the plaintiffs application. That would be too harsh a measure to be adopted because the Rules are meant to advance the cause of justice and not to thwart the same.

(3.) In view of the foregoing reasons, therefore, the impugned order dated 18.4.2002 is set aside. The learned trial Court is directed to treat the plaintiffs application as having been filed properly in terms of order 12 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and to call upon defendant No. 1 to record admission or denial with respect to the documents in question. The petition is allowed. No order as to costs.