This is defendants revision petition against Munsiff, Billawars order of April 27, 2007 whereby he had disallowed petitioners application seeking summoning of the records of File No. 9/Appeal titled Rajneesh Sharma v. Inder Singh pending before Learned District Judge, Kathua. 2. Petitioner is contesting respondents suit for ejectment from a shop situated at Tilla Tehsil Billawar and recovery of Rs. 3000/- as arrears of rent. 3. Contesting respondents suit, the petitioner had, inter alia, raised a plea that the respondent-plaintiff had received advance rent of Rs. 50,000/- and the suit was not thus maintainable. To support his stand, he had relied upon some rent receipts shown to have been issued by the respondent, Photo copies whereof had been filed along with the written statement. Petitioner too, before the filing of respondents suit, had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he was in possession of the suit shop as a tenant and that the respondent be restrained from evicting him therefrom without adopting due course of law or causing any damage to the shop. 4. The rent receipts, relied upon by the petitioner in his written statement in the respondents suit for ejectment, had been relied upon by him in this suit as well. An appeal against an order arising out of this suit is stated to have been pending before learned District Judge, Kathua. 5. When the petitioner was appearing as his own witness in respondents suit for ejectment against him, he had got his statement deferred to move an application seeking summoning of File No. 9/Appeal pending before District Judge, Kathua. It is this application of the petitioner which has been dismissed by the trial Court aggrieved whereby he has approached this Court calling in question the order impugned in this revision petition. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records. 7. Learned Munsiff has rejected petitioners application on the ground that having failed to produce the original receipts at the time of filing of his written statement, he could not be permitted to summon the original receipts which are stated to be with File No. 9/Appeal of District Judge, Kathua. 8. I have seen the Photo copies of the receipts which the petitioner had filed along with his written statement to respondents suit as also those which he had filed along with his suit for declaration against the respondent. 8. I have seen the Photo copies of the receipts which the petitioner had filed along with his written statement to respondents suit as also those which he had filed along with his suit for declaration against the respondent. One of the receipts on which the petitioner had placed reliance while filing his written statement pertains to the receipt of an amount of Rs. 50,000/- by the respondent, is the photocopy of the original receipt which is shown to have been attested by Susheel Kumar, Notary, on September 4, 1999. Photo copies of rest of the receipts relied upon in the written statement too are the Photo copies of the same documents which had been filed by the petitioner along with his suit for declaration. 9. It appears that the petitioner had later produced the original receipts too before District Judge, Kathua and certified copies of these receipts had been placed on the records of the trial Court. 10. Perusal of the certified copies of these original receipts indicates that these are the photo copies of the original receipts which had been certified by learned District Judge, Kathua as their true copies. 11. While dismissing petitioners application, learned Munsiff does not appear to have looked at these documents perusal whereof shows that the photo copies which had been relied upon by the petitioner in his written statement and suit for declaration, were the photo copies of the original documents which are now stated to have been filed before District Judge, Kathua. 12. Respondents had all along been aware of these photo copies of the receipts which had been relied upon by the petitioner, both in his earlier suit as also in respondents suit and it was in this context that while appearing as his own witness in his suit, he had, denied the execution and issuance of these receipts to the petitioner. 13. Defendants right to project his defence that respondents suit was not maintainable because he had paid the amount covered by the receipts to the plaintiff, by summoning/production of, original receipts, of whatever evidentiary value they later turn out to be, in the ultimate analysis, cannot, in my opinion, be scuttled when he had yet to exhaust his right of leading evidence in respondents suit. 14. Learned Munsiff has, therefore, taken a pedantic view of the provisions of Order 13 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 14. Learned Munsiff has, therefore, taken a pedantic view of the provisions of Order 13 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 15. It is true that petitioner had not spelt out any cause in his application as to why had he not produced original documents (receipts) at the time of filing of his written statement, yet in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, when the respondent was in litigation with the petitioner in his earlier suit filed a year before the filing of suit for ejectment, in which too, photo copies of the same documents (receipts) had been annexed by him in his suit for declaration, the petitioner cannot be deprived of his right to substantiate his defence in the suit for ejectment by seeking summoning of the records of District Judge, Kathua where original receipts are stated to have been filed, and that too only because he had not drafted his application properly and omitted to spell out the reasons for not filing original documents with the written statement. 16. Looking to the photo copies of the documents annexed with the written statement and the certified copies of the original receipts (which have been issued by the Certifying Officer after photo coping the original receipts on the file of District Judge, Kathua), I am of the view that it would not be in the interests of justice to deprive the petitioner of his right to project his defence by proving the photo copies of the receipts annexed with the written statement, by summoning the records of the District Judge and taking such other steps as he may choose in this behalf while leading his evidence. 17. Provisions of Order 13 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, have been engrafted in the Code to advance the cause of justice and in that view of the matter, these are required to be interpreted with a pragmatic view. 18. Rejection of petitioners application seeking permission to summon the records of learned District Judge, Kathua has therefore resulted in failure of justice. The order impugned, if allowed to remain as it is, would result in failure of justice besides causing irreparable injury to the petitioner. 19. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that petitioners application was required to be allowed in the interest of justice. 20. The order impugned, if allowed to remain as it is, would result in failure of justice besides causing irreparable injury to the petitioner. 19. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that petitioners application was required to be allowed in the interest of justice. 20. For all what has been said above, this petition, therefore, succeeds and is accordingly allowed setting aside Munsiff, Billawars Order dated April 27, 2007 and allowing petitioners application seeking summoning of records of File No. 9/Appeal of District Judge, Kathua. 21. Learned Munsiff, Billawar shall take requisite steps to summon the file for expeditious disposal of the suit.