SANATAN DHARAM SABHA KULLU Vs. JAGAN NATH SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision petition has been filed by the plaintiff against the order of the learned Trial Court rejecting the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure with the prayer that the additional documents be allowed to be produced and proved on the record in accordance with law. While dismissing the application, the Trial Court noted that the documents sought to be placed on the record were not filed with the application nor were they relied upon by the plaintiff nor any cogent reason was assigned for not producing the documents with the plaint. While concluding, the Trial Court observed that having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that no documents sought to be proved in evidence tendered are accompanied with the application, it was held that no permission could be accorded.

(2.) THE findings of the Trial Court that the documents sought to be proved on the record were not filed with the application, is not correct. The finding is perverse and not supported by the material on the record. The application was filed by the plaintiff on 15.7.1997. On the same date, the documents were filed along with the application accompanied by a list of documents filed. The order of the Trial Court shows a total non-application of mind. Both the applications and the list of documents filed bear the same date and the signatures of the Senior Sub Judge, Kullu. The judgment cannot be supported from the material on the record. The learned counsel for the respondent has resisted the revision on a number of grounds including the fact that the documents were filed at a later stage and cannot be allowed to be proved in evidence.

(3.) APART from the fact that the Court has mis-directed itself on the question involved by not even adverting to the facts, it is well settled law that the rules of procedure are not made with the purpose of hindering justice.