[Filing of documents after WS] Courts must lean towards doing substantial justice rather than relying upon procedural and technical violation, SC

The SC on OCT 13, 2020 {ARUNA OSWAL vs PANKAJ OSWAL & ORS.} held that Sub-­rule (1) of Order 8 Rule 1A CPC mandates the defendant to produce the documents in his possession before the court and file the same along with his written statement.     He   must  list   out   the   documents   which   are   in   his possession or power as well as those which are not. It was held that in case the defendant does not file any document or copy thereof along with his written   statement,   such   a   document   shall   not   be   allowed   to   be received in evidence on behalf of the defendant at the hearing of the suit.

The SC Bench, comprising of Justice S. Abdul Nazeer & Justice Sanjiv Khanna further held that it   is   often   said   that   procedure   is   the   handmaid   of   justice. It was held that procedural and technical hurdles shall not be allowed to come in the way of the court while doing substantial justice. It was held that 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. It was held that one should not forget the fact that litigation is nothing but a journey towards truth which is the foundation of justice and the court is required to take appropriate steps to thrash out the underlying truth in every dispute. It was held that therefore, the court should take a lenient view when an application is made for production of the documents under sub-­rule (3).

It was held that the   defendants   have   filed   an application assigning cogent reasons for not producing the documents along   with   the   written   statement.  It was held that they   have   stated   that   these documents were missing and were only traced at a later stage.   It was held that it cannot be disputed that these documents are necessary for arriving at a just decision in the suit. It was held that the SC is of the view that the courts below ought to have granted leave to produce these documents.

Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, the appeal succeeded and it was accordingly allowed by the SC.