JUDGMENT 1. - By way of this writ petition, the defendant facing a suit for redemption of mortgage seeks to question the two orders passed by the learned Trial Court on 26.03.2008 (Annexure-7) and (Annexure-9) respectively whereby the learned Trial Court has rejected the petitioner's application moved under Order 8, Rule 1 A(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Annexure-7) and has closed the right of the defendant to lead evidence of any other witness except the statement of the defendant himself whose affidavit has already been filed. 2. Background facts and circumstances leading to the orders impugned are that the plaintiff-respondent has filed the suit for redemption of mortgage asserting that the property in question was placed in mortgage with the defendant-petitioner on 24.12.1988 for an amount of Rs.50,000/-. The plaintiff has stated the cause of action that the property was mortgaged for five years and despite his repeated requests, the defendant has not re-deemed the mortgage by receiving the mortgage money and has not delivered possession of the suit property. The factum of mortgage is not in dispute on behalf of the petitioner. His case has been that the property has continued to be on rent with him before 24.12.1988 on monthly rent of Rs.3,000/-; that in the month of December 1988, for being in need of an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- the plaintiff received such an amount from the defendant and executed mortgage deed in relation to the amount of Rs.50,000/-and in relation to other amount of Rs.50,000/- he agreed to keep the premises in question on rent with the Company Subhash Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. in which the defendant was also a Director and the amount of interest was being adjusted in the rent payable. The plaintiff by filing the replication has denied the assertion of the defendant about tenancy and has asserted that since 24.12.1988, the defendant was in possession of the suit property as mortgagee. The plaintiff has also denied the transactions and dealings as asserted by the defendant. 3. The plaintiff by filing the replication has denied the assertion of the defendant about tenancy and has asserted that since 24.12.1988, the defendant was in possession of the suit property as mortgagee. The plaintiff has also denied the transactions and dealings as asserted by the defendant. 3. On the pleadings of parties, the learned Trial Court has framed the following issues on 30.11.2007 placing burden thereof on the defendant:- " 1- vk;k izfroknh oknh dks ca/kd jkf'k dh vnk;xh dj pqdk gS vkSj laifRr ca/kd eqDr gks pqdh gS\ 2- vk;k oknxzLr ifjlj esa izfroknh fnukad 24-12-1988 ls iwoZ ls gh crkSj fdjk;snkj dkfct Fkk] ca/kdeqfDr ds ckn Hkh crkSj fdjk;snkj dkfct gS vkSj bl dkj.k ls oknh dksbZ dCtk ca/kdeqfDr ds dkj.k ls izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gS\ &izfroknh 3- vk;k lysD'ku flUFksfVd bl izdj.k esa vko';d i{kdkj gS\ &izfroknh 4- vuqrks"k\ " 4. In view of the questions involved, the matter was placed for defendant's evidence. The petitioner has not annexed all the relevant orders and order-sheets in this writ petition. However, learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of submissions has placed for perusal entire of the relevant orders and order-sheets in this case and therefrom it is noticed that on 03.01.2008 though the matter was fixed for defendant's evidence, no witness was present but an application was moved under Order 14, Rule 5 CPC that was placed for arguments on the next day i.e., 04.01.2008. However, on 04.01.2008 when counsel for the plaintiff filed reply to the application, the matter was adjourned for arguments on the application at the request of counsel for the defendant. The arguments were heard on the application on 10.01.2008 and the application was rejected by the order passed on 11.01.2008 and the matter was fixed for defendant's evidence on 14.02.2008. 5. On 14.02.2008 an application was moved on behalf of defendant-petitioner under Order 7, Rule 1A (3) CPC. On being questioned, learned counsel expressed his inability to show a copy of the application so moved on 14.02.2008. Be that as it may, from the observations as made in the order passed on 14.02.2008, it appears that the defendant asserted in the said application that he was a tenant even before commencement of the mortgage and even thereafter and that the documents showing the character of possession of the defendant including vouchers and accounts, telephone bills etc. Be that as it may, from the observations as made in the order passed on 14.02.2008, it appears that the defendant asserted in the said application that he was a tenant even before commencement of the mortgage and even thereafter and that the documents showing the character of possession of the defendant including vouchers and accounts, telephone bills etc. could not be filed at the time of filing of the written statement and prayed for taking such documents on record. The application was opposed on behalf of the plaintiff. The learned Trial Court though rejected the prayer made in relation to telephone bills for being not relevant for the purpose of deciding the status of landlord and tenant, yet found in relation to vouchers and accounts that even when they do not bear plaintiff's signature, they could not be treated as fabricated at this stage and for documents having been filed late considered it proper to take the same on record on costs of Rs.500/-. The observations as made by the Trial Court while allowing the application dated 14.02.2008 read as under:- " tgka rd fdjk;s dh jkf'k ds ckmplZ o ys[kksa dk laca/k gS gkykafd blesa oknh ds gLrk{kj ugha gS fQj Hkh bl LVst ij bls QthZ ugha ekuk tk ldrk ysfdu lkFk esa ;g Hkh lgh gS fd ;g nLrkost vR;f/kd foyac ls izLrqr fd;s gS] vr% foyax dks dksLV ls dEiulsV djrs gq, ;s nLrkost jsdkMZ ij fy;k tkuk mfpr gSA vr% VsyhQksu ds fcYl dks NksM+rs gq, fdjk;k jkf'k ds ckmplZ o ys[kksa dh izfr;ksa ds laca/k esa ;g vkosnu 500 :0 dksLV ij Lohdkj fd;k tkdj izLrqr nLrkost jsdkMZ ij fy;s tkrs gS] 100 :0 fof/kd lgk;rk dks"k esa vkxkeh is'kh ls iwoZ tek djkus gksaxs rFkk 400:0 vkxkeh is'kh rd oknh dks vnk djus gksxh vkSj dksLV iwoZorhZ 'krZ gksxhA vkns'k lquk;k x;kA " 6. After passing of the order, the defendant sought time for evidence and although the plaintiff had objection, in the interest of justice an opportunity was extended and the matter was set for defendant's evidence on 28.02.2008. The matter was adjourned on 28.02.2008 and was placed for defendant's evidence on 12.03.2008. 7. It appears that on 12.03.2008 the defendant's affidavit in evidence was filed but then the defendant stated to be not ready for cross-examination and thus the matter was further adjourned on 26.03.2008. The matter was adjourned on 28.02.2008 and was placed for defendant's evidence on 12.03.2008. 7. It appears that on 12.03.2008 the defendant's affidavit in evidence was filed but then the defendant stated to be not ready for cross-examination and thus the matter was further adjourned on 26.03.2008. On this date of 26.03.2008, up came another application on behalf of the defendant under Order 8, Rule 1A (3) CPC seeking production of the documents. It was stated in the application (Annexure-5) that the earlier accounts in relation to the rent have been produced on record and at present also, the plaintiff was recovering rent from Selection Synthetics Ltd. and vouchers and ledgers etc. have been filed on behalf of the defendant. It was further asserted that the defendant-company has produced auditor's accounts before the Income-Tax Department which were being filed with the application and there was no doubt about their genuineness and such documents going to the root of the matter are required to be taken on record in the interest of justice. 8. The learned Trial Court has proceeded to reject the said application essentially on the two counts: one that the relevant pages of the documents sought to be produced were not of any certified copy from the Income Tax Department nor were the original; and if the originals were in possession of the defendant, there was no occasion to withhold the same; and secondly, the learned Trial Court has noticed that the documents were in possession of the defendant right from the beginning and in relation to the very same amount of rent, the defendant moved an application on 15.02.2008 and produced certain vouchers and such application was allowed and the defendant could have filed such documents at the earliest and nothing was stated in the application as to why the documents were not filed earlier. Hence, the learned Trial Court has proceeded to reject the application as moved by the petitioner. 9. After passing of the order aforesaid, the petitioner moved an application before the learned Trial Court that application for production of documents having been rejected, it was in the interest of justice that a month's time be granted to him to obtain the copy of the order and to take appropriate proceedings before the High Court. The learned Trial Court has considered such prayer by its second order passed on 26.03.2008 (Annexure-9). The learned Trial Court has considered such prayer by its second order passed on 26.03.2008 (Annexure-9). After a reference to the proceedings in the suit and the adjournments taken in the matter, the learned Trial Court has observed that the defendant was unnecessarily delaying the matter by filing different applications and had already been extended enough opportunities for leading evidence and till date, the defendant has not produced affidavit of any other witness and even defendant himself was not ready to get examined as a witness. The learned Trial Court observed that the matter was fit enough to close down the evidence of the defendant but still extending indulgence in the interest of justice, particularly for the affidavit of the defendant having been filed, a last opportunity may be extended to him to examine himself in evidence but for no other affidavit having been filed, the learned Trial Court has proceeded to close down other evidence on behalf of the defendant. 10. Assailing the orders aforesaid, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned Trial Court has been in error in rejecting the application as moved on behalf of the petitioner seeking permission to produce documents. According to the learned counsel, documents are directly related to the matter in controversy and could have been taken on record in the interest of justice and in respect of delay, if any, the plaintiff could have been compensated by way of costs. Learned counsel further contended that the learned Trial Court has acted wholly illegal in proceeding with the matter with extra hurry where it has closed the other evidence of the defendant. Learned counsel submitted that the rules of procedure ought not to have been applied in such a strict manner by the learned Trial Court and the approach of the learned Trial Court would result in denial of adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 11. Learned counsel submitted that the rules of procedure ought not to have been applied in such a strict manner by the learned Trial Court and the approach of the learned Trial Court would result in denial of adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 11. During the course of submissions, after examining the entire record and the order-sheets as placed for perusal by learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court expressed its reservation on the approach of the defendant in attempting to file documents in piece-meal one after another and moving repeat applications for the purpose and particularly in view of the order dated 14.02.2008, this Court did not feel satisfied on the conduct of the defendant in moving yet another application for filing yet further documents; yet and however, it was observed that in the interest of justice, this Court might consider granting indulgence to the defendant to lead other evidence if he was so desirous but it was for the defendant to make his position clear if he was to press on the part of the matter relating to the order Annexure-7 also. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner responded with the submissions that the petitioner is of course desirous of putting his defence before the court and seeks to lead further evidence; and in the overall circumstances of the case, the petitioner shall stand advised not to press on his prayers in relation to the order Annexure-7; and, therefore, he would confine his submissions in relation to the order Annexure-9 insofar other evidence of the defendant has been declined. 13. Having given a thoughtful consideration to the matter, this Court is clearly of opinion that learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly not pressed on the challenge to the order dated 26.03.2008 (Annex.7) in this writ petition rejecting the application as moved on behalf of the petitioner. 14. Per the requirement of Order 8, Rule 1A CPC, when the defendant bases his defence upon a document or relies upon any document in his possession or power, he is required to enter such document in a list and to produce the same before the court when presenting the written statement and when the document is not in his power and possession, to state wherever possible in whose power or possession it is. Per sub-rule (3) of Rule 1AORDER8 CPC, a document which ought to be produced in court by the defendant under the said rule but not so produced, would not without leave of the court, be received in evidence on his behalf. The leave of the court for production of documents as contemplated by sub-rule (3) of Rule 1AORDER8 CPC could be granted on the basic considerations of interest of justice and for extending fullest opportunity of hearing to a party concerned. The rules of procedure are always required to be adopted and applied in order to sub-serve the cause of justice and not for the purpose of punishment of parties and too strict an approach towards rules of procedure is never countenanced. However, the aspects of interest of justice are required to be considered by the Court in the overall scenario and are to be applied towards interest of justice for both the parties. 15. The order dated 14.02.2008 as passed by the learned Trial Court in this matter is an apposite example of the learned Trial Court rightly taking into comprehension the requirements of applying the rules of procedure to advance the cause of justice and while passing the said order, the learned Trial Court despite opposition of the plaintiff permitted production of documents though filed late by the defendant particularly when they were said to be related with the facts concerning payment of rent, the core of the defence of the defendant petitioner. However, the defendant is aware of the subject matter of the litigation and of his stand right from the beginning; and the application as moved on 26.03.2008 (Annexure-5) by the defendant to produce yet further documents in relation to a company Selection Synthetics Ltd. in relation to very same plea concerning the payment of rent could not have been countenanced. If the said documents were in power and possession of the defendant and they had any bearing on the subject matter of litigation, there was no reason why the same could not have been produced while filing the written statement. Moreover, there is no reason whatsoever as to why such documents even if omitted to be filed with the written statement could not have been filed while the defendant moved the application on 14.02.2008 for production of certain documents in relation to the same plea of payment of rent. 16. Moreover, there is no reason whatsoever as to why such documents even if omitted to be filed with the written statement could not have been filed while the defendant moved the application on 14.02.2008 for production of certain documents in relation to the same plea of payment of rent. 16. A party to the litigation cannot be acceded a right to put spokes in the progress of the litigation in the manner attempted on behalf of the defendant to move repeat applications for the same purpose to go on producing documents one after another at every date of hearing. Such procedure, if countenanced, would be nothing but putting at naught the basic frame of the Code of Civil Procedure and would be even contrary to the requirements of interest of justice. The order as passed by the learned Trial Court on 26.03.2008 (Annexure-7) remains unexceptionable and the application as moved by the defendant has rightly been rejected. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly chosen the stand on behalf of the defendant not to press on the prayer in relation to the said order (Annexure-7). 17. So far the other part of the matter concerning the second order passed on 26.03.2008 (Annexure-9) is concerned, again the learned Trial Court cannot be faulted in having refused the prayer for adjournment as made on behalf of the defendant merely because a baseless application moved by him was rejected on that date. The application (Annexure-8) as moved on behalf of the defendant-petitioner to grant one month's time for the purpose of filing the writ petition was indicative of nothing less than an intention on his part to protract the matter one way or the other. 18. However, when the learned Trial Court has considered it appropriate to extend last opportunity to the defendant to have himself examined for his affidavit having already been filed; and when the matter was already being fixed for defendant's evidence on 17.04.2008, there was no such requirement to close down the other part of evidence of the defendant and the matter could have been fixed on the next date for the entire of the evidence of the defendant without causing any prejudice to the plaintiff particularly when the matter was nevertheless being adjourned. To that extent the part of order dated 26.03.2008 (Annexure-9) deserves reconsideration. 19. To that extent the part of order dated 26.03.2008 (Annexure-9) deserves reconsideration. 19. In the aforesaid view of the matter, while this writ petition is dismissed as not pressed in relation to the order dated 26.03.2008 (Annexure-7), let a notice for final disposal be issued to the plaintiff-respondent No.1 while dispensing with the service on the proforma respondent No.2, the court concerned. Issue notice of stay application also. Notices be filed in two sets during the course of day. One set be given 'Dasti' to the learned counsel for the petitioner for service upon the respondent by registered post acknowledgment due. Notices be made returnable on 05.05.2008. 20. The matter is said to be fixed for defendant's evidence on 17.04.2008 i.e., tomorrow. In the interest of justice, it is considered appropriate and hence ordered that if the defendant produces all other witnesses sought to be examined in the matter before the Trial Court tomorrow i.e., 17.04.2008 and files their affidavit and offers an amount of Rs.1,500/- towards costs to the plaintiff and the plaintiff accepts such costs, the Trial Court may permit the defendant to examine such witnesses on 17.04.2008 or any other date convenient to it. However, if the plaintiff raises any objection against this procedure being adopted and refuses to accept costs, then the learned Trial Court shall record such objection and in that event further proceedings in the suit shall remain stayed till next date of hearing in this writ petition. A copy of this order be supplied to learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of day.Addenda: 21. The matter was considered in the first session today and the order aforesaid was passed but before the order was signed, learned counsel Mr. K.C. Samdariya appeared for the plaintiff-respondent No.1 and submitted that he had filed a caveat in the matter on 9th inst. and he is ready to accept notice on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent. On being informed about the contents of the order passed today, learned counsel Mr. Samdariya submitted on instructions that the plaintiff respondent is agreeable on the proposition that if the costs as enjoined by the order aforesaid are paid by the petitioner and affidavits in evidence are produced before the Trial Court tomorrow then, such witnesses may also be examined. 22. In view of the submissions so made on behalf of the respondent by Mr. 22. In view of the submissions so made on behalf of the respondent by Mr. Samdariya, there appears no requirement to keep this matter pending any further for consideration. 23. The order passed earlier in this writ petition is, therefore, modified in the manner that if the petitioner pays the amount of costs and produces affidavits of all the witnesses, the learned Trial Court shall permit the petitioner to examine such witnesses on the date convenient to it. 24. In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition is partly allowed to the extent indicated above and the impugned order dated 26.03.2008 (Annex.9) stands modified to that extent. There shall be no further order as to costs of this writ petition.Writ Petition Partly ALlowed. *******