JUDGMENT C.K. Thakker, C.J.(Oral) :- The petitioner has approached this Court by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution against an order passed by the Rent Controller. Kullu on 17th May. 2001 rejecting he application made by the petitioner under Order 18. Rule 17-A of the code of Civil Procedure. 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the Code). 2. A rent case was pending before the Rent Controller between the petitioner and the respondent. It appears that one Pavitar Singh appeared as a witness on behalf of the respondent-tenant. He was examined by the respondent and he had deposed something in his examination-in-chief. He was duly cross-examined on behalf of the petitioner-landlord. Evidence on both sides was closed. 3. Thereafter, an application was made under Order 18. Rule 17-A of the Code by the petitioner-landlord on 23rd March. 2001. inter alia, stating therein that the said Pavitar Singh had executed an affidavit on 20th December. 1998. which had been produced in the Court of Senior sub Judge. Kullu in another case titled Ms. Chander Lok Sweet Shop v. Bhawani Dutt. The suit was decided on 30th August. 1999. it was further stated that against the order passed by the Senior Sub Judge. Kullu. an appeal was filed being Appeal No. 104 of 1999. which was pending. In the said affidavit, the version of Pavitar Singh was contrary to and inconsistent with his deposition in the present proceedings. A prayer was. therefore, made that the application be allowed and the affidavit be allowed to be produced on record. The application was strongly opposed by the respondent-tenant by filing objections. 4. The learned Rent Controller, after hearing the parties, rejected the application observing that the deposition of Pavitar Singh was over. He was duly cross-examined on behalf of the petitioner-landlord and in the cross-examination, no such question was put. The petitioner, therefore, cannot be allowed to make application for production of affidavit executed in some other proceedings of which the petitioner-landlord was aware. Since the case did not fall within the four corners of Rule 17-A of Order 188 of the Code, it was liable to be rejected. The application was accordingly dismissed. Against the said order, the present petition is filed by the petitioner. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as per settled law. Since the case did not fall within the four corners of Rule 17-A of Order 188 of the Code, it was liable to be rejected. The application was accordingly dismissed. Against the said order, the present petition is filed by the petitioner. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as per settled law. rules of procedure are to be construed liberally for advancement of justice. It is hand-maid and not the mistress of justice and if any document is necessary for the purpose of deciding real controversy in question and it is coming from proper custody, such a prayer should not be rejected notwithstanding delay or negligence on the pan of the party. Ultimately, it is for doing justice between the parties. The counsel also submitted that it is true that Pavitar Singh was examined on behalf of the respondent-tenant and was duly cross-examined, but at that stage, the petitioner was not aware that Pavitar Singh would state something, which was contrary to what was stated by him in an affidavit executed in other case between the same parties, and hence, the application was necessary. He. therefore, submitted that by taking liberal view, the Rent Controller ought to have granted the application. He submitted that if the application would be rejected, the affidavit, which was executed by Pavitar Singh would not come on record, which would result in miscarriage of justice. This is. therefore eminently a fit case to interfere in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent-tenant, on the other hand, contended that there Is no error of law or of jurisdiction committed by the Rent Controller in rejecting the application. He submitted that apart from the fact that this is a discretionary order and it was within the discretion of the Rent Controller to reject the application, even otherwise, no interference is called for. The case in which the affidavit was said to have been executed by Pavitar Singh was between the same parties. The petitioner-landlord was very much aware of the said affidavit. When Pavitar Singh was examined, in cross-examination, an opportunity was available to the petitioner to put questions by contradicting him or by questioning him regarding the facts stated in the affidavit executed by him. but it was not done. The petitioner-landlord was very much aware of the said affidavit. When Pavitar Singh was examined, in cross-examination, an opportunity was available to the petitioner to put questions by contradicting him or by questioning him regarding the facts stated in the affidavit executed by him. but it was not done. Again, it is neither fact in issue nor relevant fact and the present case has to be decided on its own merits and in the light of all the circumstances. Hence, it cannot be said that any jurisdictional error can be said to have been committed, which requires interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. For that, reliance was placed in Guranditta Ram v. Murari lal & Anr. 1974 RCJ 351 (P&H). 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, in my opinion, the petition deserves to be allowed. It is no doubt true that the affidavit executed by Pavitar Singh was between the same parties and it was a matter of past. The petitioner-landlord was thus aware of the affidavit. It is not the case of the petitioner also that he was not aware. In these circumstances, the petitioner could have asked certain questions on the basis of the said affidavit when he was cross-examined by the petitioner- landlord. 8. At the same time, however, it cannot be ignored that an affidavit was executed in judicial proceedings. It was a part of record in a rent case. Even the appeal is pending. Therefore, at the most, it can be said that there was not sufficient care of to some extent slackness on the part of the petitioner in not putting questions when Pavitar Singh was in the witness box and was cross-examined. But the dun of the Court is to do justice and if for doing full and complete justice between the parties, some document is necessary, authencity of which is not disputed or cannot be disputed, the approach of the Court should be liberal. When a person has deposed something while in witness box and has stated something fn the affidavit, contrary or contradictory, to what he has stated in the affidavit executed in judicial proceedings, ordinarily the Court should not take hyper-technical view land reject the application. When a person has deposed something while in witness box and has stated something fn the affidavit, contrary or contradictory, to what he has stated in the affidavit executed in judicial proceedings, ordinarily the Court should not take hyper-technical view land reject the application. I may not be understood to have expressed an opinion that in the said affidavit, something was stated, which is not consistent with the deposition of the witness in the present proceedings, but if that was the case of the petitioner and an application was made, the learned Rent Controller ought to have granted the application. 9. For the foregoing reasons, the petition deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The order passed by the Rent Controller. Kullu in CMA No.5-VI/97 on 17th May. 2001 is hereby quashed and set aside and the application stands allowed. As and when the matter will come up before the Rent controller, it will be decided on its own merits and I keep the contentions of both the parties open. Petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. CMP No.69 of 2001 10. In view of the disposal of the petition, the present application stands disposed of and interim order granted on 6th July. 2001 stands vacated. -