OM PRAKASH KESHRI Vs. CHINTU DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ application is directed against the order dated 16th September, 2004, passed, by 2nd Additional Munsif, Giridih, in Eviction Suit No. 2 of 1998, whereby, application of the applicant (defendant in the suit) for production of an agreement for sale dated 14th August, 1986 has been rejected. Applicant is a defendant in a suit filed by the respondent for. his eviction under the provisions of Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act. After filing of the pleadings and framing of issues, conclusion of the plaintiff's evidence and when defendant's evidence was being recorded, an application was preferred by the present applicant on 2nd July, 2004, seeking leave of the court to place on record the document dated 14th August, 1986, an agreement of sale allegedly in respect of the suit property. The basis for this application seems to be the statement of the defendant's witness, namely, Mohan Kumar Gahlaut, who claims to be a witness to the agreement. After inviting objections from the respondent and rejoinder from the applicant, the trial court passed the impugned order, rejecting the application for production of. the document at the stage of evidence of the defendant. It has been observed in the impugned order that the defendant has not made out a case about the existence of an agreement for sale dated 14th August, 1986 in the written statement. It is further observed that the defendant's witnesses have also not deposed about the agreement, in question. The trial court is also of the opinion that stage for filing document has also passed and no sufficient reason for filing the document at this stage is shown.

(2.) MR . R.N. Sahay learned Counsel appearing for the applicant has referred to the written statement filed in the suit. In paragraph 8 of the writ statement it has been stated that Narendra Prasad Sinha alias Budhulal Sinha had entered into concluded contract for sale of the said premises to the defendant on a consideration amount of Rs. 15,000/ - and in the meanwhile till the sale is materialized, said Narendra Prasad Sinha began to realize Rs. 100/ - per month for use and occupation of the premises as rent from the defendant. This averment in the written statement is preceded by statement in paragraph No. 6 of the written statement, which refers to transfer of the property in favour of the respective lessees, including the defendant. Not only this, the trial court while framing issues has also framed one of the issues i.e. issue No. 4 relating to the sale of the said premises to the defendant. Issue No. 4 reads as follows: Had Narendra Prasad Sinha @ Budhulal Sinha promised to sell the suit premises to the defendant?

(3.) THIS Rule requires filing of a document relied upon by the defendant as his defence and In his possession or power at the time of presentation of written statement. It further provides that if a document is not, in possession or power of the defendant, he shall state in whose possession or power, wherever possible, it is, Sub -rule (3) of Rule 1 -A imposes restriction on the right of the defendant to produce a document at a later stage without leave of the court, A reading of this Rule clearly show that there is no absolute bar for production of the document at a stage, later than the presentation of the written statement of the defendant. The Rule only requires leave of the court for production of document at any later stage. It is settled law that the procedure prescribed under statute is to achieve the ends of justice and not to frustrate. Sometimes pleadings may be deficient but then the pleadings are always the handiwork of the lawyers and some deficiency in the pleadings should not be a ground for an order, which may cause -injustice to any litigating party. Fair trial and fair opportunity is the spirit of law, which must be allowed to remain irrespective of procedural wrangles. No doubt, the document was not produced at the time of presentation of the written statement or even before framing of the issues nor it was specifically mentioned in the written statement, but definitely a reference is made to the contract between the parties, relating to the subject matter of the suit and the trial court has framed an issue, which has relation with the document, in question. In the case of Sri Ram Kumar Singh v. Smt. Moti Jhari Devi and Ors. reported in 2005(1) J.LJ.R. 509 this Court has clearly indicated that the delay in making application should not be a ground for rejection of the document. The Court, accordingly, observed as follows: