JUDGMENT Ravi S. Dhavan, J. 1. In the small town of Bulandshahr there is a lawyer and a trader, a partner in the firm known as Messers Anupama. The petitioner is a lawyer ; the respondent is a trader. Over the years between them they had a relationship of a customer and a shop keeper. The petitioner often purchased cloth from the respondent, some times on cash and at times on credit and on occasions took merchandise on approval pending purchase. At one stage there was a misunderstanding between them on the running account. The misunderstanding was on the balance which was to be cleared on the merchandise purchased. The two could not resolve the issue between them and this occasioned Suit No. 263 of 1985 : Messrs Anupama v. Atma Ram Sharma before the First Munsif, Bulandshahr. The respondent shopkeeper sought a money decree and on contest received it. The petitioner filed an appeal before the District Judge, Bulandshahr. 2. It is an interlocutory order passed by the District Judge, Bulandshahr which occasions the filing of this writ petition. This is an order of the District Judge dated 2-4-1987 in Civil Appeal No. 13 of 1986 : Atma Ram Sharma v. Messrs Anupama. During the pendency of the appeal, the shopkeeper filed certain additional evidence, the permission for which was granted. This aggrieves the petitioner and has given an occasion to this petition. He desires that the additional evidence must not see the bar of the Court. The matter has been vehemently contested at the Bar here. Apparently, the petitioner as a lawyer feels that he knows the law. Likewise the shopkeeper his accounts. 3. The strenuous and vehement arguments on behalf of the petitioner have been developed and on what the law is and at the outset certain cases were cited at the Bar. The case cited at the bar are : AIR 1965 Alld. 189, 1983 ALJ 400, AIR 1957 SC 912 , AIR 1976 SC 1054 and AIR 1957 Cal. 59 . 4. If facts had not been in issue then the law is clear but the most unfortunate part of the present petition is that the facts have not been set on the record fairly and the most important aspect was kept away from the Court and this is no other aspect than the trial court judgment. The petition was earlier presented by another counsel. The petition was earlier presented by another counsel. Counsel appearing for the petitioner now desires this to be set on record ; accordingly this is being done. But counsel simultaneously contends that the trial court judgment is not relevant. When additional evidence is being presented before the appellate court and is being made an issue in the writ petition the first relevant record is the judgment of the trial court. Keeping it away from the record of the writ petition constitutes material suppression of facts. When a lawyer becomes litigant then the least that he can do is to set the record before the Court exactly as it exists so that the Court may discern the facts from the record leaving pleading of law to be debated at the Bar. If the, facts in this case are seen without the trial court judgment, then the petitioner has made out a case. But if the facts are seen in the totality of circumstances from the record, not excluding the judgment of the trial court, then this Court has reservations on the facts as have been placed in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Court would have had no reservations in dismissing the writ petition on this ground alone. But the merits of the issue are being examined in the interest of justice. It is for this reason, the matter simply being one of accounting that the Court on 13-1-1988 desired and permitted parties a full opportunity to sort out the differences between them as the Court felt that the differences were such that they could be sorted out should the parties give themselves an opportunity. Learned counsel for the parties contended that no solution was precipitated in pursuance of the indulgence granted by the Court. 5. The matter basically is whether there is a debt which the petitioner lawyer has to pay, in other words are the accounts on the bills, as presented by the respondent shopkeeper correct ? The parties must have full opportunity to fault each other, and on issue a matter like this must not be frustrated on technicalities. 5. The matter basically is whether there is a debt which the petitioner lawyer has to pay, in other words are the accounts on the bills, as presented by the respondent shopkeeper correct ? The parties must have full opportunity to fault each other, and on issue a matter like this must not be frustrated on technicalities. If the petitioner as lawyer has the advantage of being more familiar with the law, and this is exactly, in effect, the argument at the Bar here then, let the shopkeeper respondent present his accounts and let him be faulted in a fair contest in the manner in which he has kept them. 6. The facts as are before this Court, and available from the judgment of the trial court placed at the Bar on behalf of the respondent, disclose that the matter relating to and in reference to the context of the accounts was debated threadbare at trial. The documents in issue are (a) two Bahi Khatas ; (b) two Rokar Bahis ; and (c) two cash memos as carbon copies, the originals of which are with the petitioner. The argument initially was that the aforesaid documents did not accompany the plaint. Subsequently it was debated that the copies were presented with the plaint but the originals were not submitted for comparison in accordance with Order VII Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. As stated already, if the facts in the petition were to be seen in isolation, then the petitioner has made out a case but if the facts are taken from the judgment of the trial Court not placed before this Court, the perspective of the issue are different. A reading of the judgment of the trial court reveals that the originals were submitted, may be not on the day when the plaint was presented but subsequently much before the date when the issues were struck. The issue whether the documents were presented or not thus is a matter between the plaintiff and the Court. The trial Court has placed on record that after the presentation of the plaint, which was accompanied by copies of the accounts mentioned in paragraph 2 of the plaint, the documents were presented but unfortunately an officer of the Court did not endorse them. The trial Court has placed on record that after the presentation of the plaint, which was accompanied by copies of the accounts mentioned in paragraph 2 of the plaint, the documents were presented but unfortunately an officer of the Court did not endorse them. Subsequently, on more than one occasion the originals were brought into Court and became the subject-matter of examination and cross-examination upon which parties were at loggerheads and it is on record that the documents did see the Bar of the Court. Prior to the date of issues, apparently the trial court saw and compared the documents but permitted the defendant to raise objections without any prejudice to the case of the plaintiffs. These are the objections which are now being raised before the District Judge in appeal and after being considered and not accepted are being debated in the writ petition. The judgment of the trial Court is in detail. A reading of the judgment discloses that the defendant is not a stranger to the documents. The documents were referred to at the time of evidence and arguments before the trial court. The documents saw the Bar of the trial court and this is not a issue and is on record and were thus permitted to be placed in appeal as additional evidence. The District Judge granted permission for bringing on record these documents. The nature of the documents have been outlined already. It will not be in the interests of justice to deny the respondent shopkeeper an opportunity to place these documents as additional evidence at the appellate stage to be examined by the Court. One set of documents are the cash memos. The petitioner-defendant has himself brought them on record before the trial court as he has the originals, the carbon copies are with the shopkeeper. The carbon copies of the cash memos must come on record as collateral evidence and then it is upon the appellate court to examine upon the veracity of the evidence. The other two documents are the Bahi Khatas and the Rokar Bahis. The carbon copies of the cash memos must come on record as collateral evidence and then it is upon the appellate court to examine upon the veracity of the evidence. The other two documents are the Bahi Khatas and the Rokar Bahis. Before this Court considers this set of evidence it cannot help but notice the observations of the learned District Judge which is as below :- "On the other hand learned counsel for the appellant contended that the trial court has wrongly referred to these documents and though there was no serious objection of the admission of Bahi Khata and Rokar Bahi." The question now is that after this submission before the appellate court was it appropriate for the petitioner to file this writ petition when he had not seriously objected to the evidence being brought on record at the appellate stage. Neither of the three documents are such which must be kept away from the Court to arrive at the truth for reconciling the accounts between the lawyer and the shopkeeper. The petition itself, was inappropriate. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner on this aspect and on observations of the learned District Judge is that the observations of the appellate court are wrong. This Court cannot accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner as lightly as it has been made. To fault the observation of a court is an arduous responsibility than merely saying that the Court has made a wrong observation. 7. Thus, this leaves the record of the courts below in a state that upon the presentation of the evidence at the appellate stage, the petitioner did not have a serious objection to the documents being brought on record, in so far as one set of evidence is concerned. The other evidence which remains is only collateral evidence. 8. The rest of the legal submissions are not relevant. This Court would otherwise have dealt with the submissions if the facts had been placed in totality. The mechanics of whether the documents had been tendered under Order VII Rule 17 or could be accepted under Order VII Rule 18 or called for and be accepted by the appellate court under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code, thus, is not relevant argument regard being had to the circumstances that the facts were kept away from the Court. This Court, in the circumstance, is not recommending anything further on the manner in which the petition has been presented and would desire that the parties resolve the issues between them before the court where the appeal is pending. With all the evidence before the appellate court let the lawyer as an appellant employ his ingenuity and let the shopkeeper do the same with his accounts. As the two have been unable to solve the problem themselves, the solution must inevitably come from the Court. The petition is dismissed as the respondents had entered appearance at the Bar, with costs. Petition dismissed.