KISHAN CHAND Vs. PANKAJ ABBANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dtd. 26. 5. 2008 passed by the learned trial Court rejecting the application of the defendant filed under Order 8 rule 1a (3) of the C. P. C. seeking to produce on record certain additional documents in an eviction matter.

(2.) THE suit filed by the plaintiff was for seeking eviction of the suit shop in question on the ground of personal and bonafide necessary of the landlord. After the evidence of the plaintiff- defendant was complete on 17. 11. 2006 and the case was fixed for final arguments on 8. 12. 2006 after taking several opportunities for arguing the case, the defendant filed the aforesaid application under Order 8 Rule 1 (A) (3) of the C. P. C. and the said defendant wanted to produce the documents viz. application for registration under the Sales Tax Law by one M/s. Arihant Metals, proprietorship concern of father of the plaintiff, which was purportedly signed as Manager by the plaintiff; the marriage invitation card showing marriage of the plaintiff and his brother on 25. 2. 2005 and 27. 2. 2005 respectively and a copy of the registered sale-deed of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff and his brother, certified copy whereof was issued by the Office of Sub-Registrar, Jodhpur on 28. 9. 2007.

(3.) IN para 26 of the said judgment is Surya Dev Rai's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: &nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp" Care, caution and circumspection need to be exercised, when any of the above said two jurisdictions is sought to be invoked during the pendency of any suit or proceedings in a subordinate court and the error though calling for correction is yet capable of being corrected at the conclusion of the proceedings in an appeal or revision preferred there against and entertaining a petition invoking certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court would obstruct the smooth flow and/or early disposal of the suit or proceedings. The High Court may feel inclined to intervene where the error is such, as, if not corrected at that very moment, may become incapable of correction at a later stage and refusal to intervene would result in travesty of justice or where such refusal itself would result in prolonging of the lis.